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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/9/25 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
In light of the amendment to claim 1, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments filed on 12/9/25 pertaining to claim 10 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding applicant’s argument, “the citations at least do not include a teaching that the alleged first arm, element 1131, and the alleged second arm, element 1132, have a different upper cladding layer”, Examiner respectfully asserts that the structure of fig. 3A makes of each arm of 1131 and 1132. Thus each arm will have both claddings of 141 and 142 as each core is cited based on the claimed cladding layer as the arms are made up of both of 130 of fig. 2A. A new interpretation of the claims has been made in light of the claim amendments.
Claim Objections
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: “first leg the” in line 9 should read “first leg of the”. Furthermore, there are two first upper claddings and two second upper claddings claimed in lines 7 – 9 and 14. For examining purposes examiner interprets them to be one of each not a total of four. Appropriate correction is required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21 – 23 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious a device comprising, among other things, wherein the first region of the first waveguide core layer includes a first segment and a second segment, a first distance extending between a first sidewall of the second segment and a second sidewall of the first segment in a first cross-sectional view. The closest relevant prior art of record, Grillanda et al. (U.S. PG Pub. # 2022/0137295 A1), teaches a waveguide core 130 but fails to teach or suggest that a distance exists between a first segment and second segment as claimed. This would require that the waveguide has a curve as depicted in the instant application in fig. 3, of which 130 of ‘295 does not. Thus, with no teaching from the prior art, and without the benefit of applicant's teachings, there is no motivation for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine/modify the prior art of record in a manner so as to create the claimed invention.
Claim 24 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious wherein the first arm and the second arm each include a gap within the core layer, the second material of the upper cladding layer entirely filling the gap.
The closest relevant prior art of record, Grillanda et al. (U.S. PG Pub. # 2022/0137295 A1), teaches the second material (141) filling the gap part way (fig. 3A).
Thus, with no teaching from the prior art, and without the benefit of applicant's teachings, there is no motivation for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine/modify the prior art of record in a manner so as to create the claimed 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 –
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.
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.
Claims 1 – 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grillanda et al. (U.S. PG Pub. # 2022/0137295 A1) in view of Djordjevic et al. (U.S. Patent # 9,257,814 B1).
In Re claims 1 – 3, 6, ‘295 teaches an optical device comprising: a first optical path including a first waveguide core of a first material (1131 made up of 130 on the right of fig. 3A, silicon, pars. 0054, 0074, figs. 3A and 11) and a first cladding layer of a second material (142, silica, par. 0043) adjacent and over the first waveguide core (fig. 3A), wherein the first optical path includes a first arm having a first leg (right 130 of fig. 3A contained in the upper left box of fig. 11 as annotated below as the shape or positioning of the leg has not been claimed) of the first waveguide core and a second leg (the right 130 of fig. 3A contained in the right box of fig. 11 below) of the first waveguide core, wherein the first cladding layer of the second material covers a top surface and an entirety of each sidewall of the first leg, the first cladding layer covers a top surface and an entirety each sidewall of the second leg (as they are connected as seen below), the first cladding layer extending (along the slot waveguide as seen in figs. 3A and 11) from the first leg to the second leg; and
a second optical path (1132) including a second waveguide core of the first material (130 on the left of fig. 3A) and a second cladding layer of a third material (141), the second cladding layer adjacent and over the second waveguide core (fig. 3A), wherein the second material and the third material are different, the third material being titanium dioxide (TiO2) (par. 0043) and the second material being another dielectric (silica, sio.sub.2), and wherein the second optical path includes a second arm (130 on the left of fig. 3A and fig. 11) having a third leg (left lower box as annotated below) of the second waveguide core and a fourth leg (right lower box) of the second waveguide core, wherein the second cladding layer of the third material extends from the third leg to the fourth leg (figs. 3A and 11), the third material covering a top surface and an entirety of each sidewall of the third leg and the fourth leg (figs. 3A and 11).
‘295 is expressly silent to the titanium dioxide being amorphous.
‘814 teaches using amorphous titanium dioxide as the negative TOC as an overcladding to a silicon core to cancel out the TOC of a silicon core (col. 3, lines 45 – 57).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use amorphous titanium dioxide as the titanium dioxide of ‘295 so as to compensate for the positive TOC of the waveguide of fig. 3A to balance out thermal induced changes in the waveguide as a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.
[AltContent: rect][AltContent: rect][AltContent: rect][AltContent: rect]
PNG
media_image1.png
80
190
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In Re claims 4 and 5, ‘295 teaches SiO2 (220) below the TiO2 (141) and first waveguide (one of 130), fig. 3A.
In Re claim 7, ‘295 teaches the layering as claimed (fig. 3A).
In Re claim 8, ‘295 teaches the claimed MZI structure (fig. 11) but is expressly silent to the arms being symmetric as claimed.
However, it is well known in the art to make the arms of an MZI to be symmetric so as to minimize temperature dependence of the MZI.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the arms of ‘295 symmetric so as to minimize the temperature dependence of the MZI thus creating a more reliable signal output as a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.
Claims 10 – 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grillanda et al. (U.S. PG Pub. # 2022/0137295 A1).
In Re claims 10 – 13, ‘295 teaches an optical device, comprising: an input region (1110) and an output region (1130); a Mach-Zehnder Interferometer (MZI) (fig. 11, par. 0074) between the input region and the output region, wherein the MZI includes: a first arm (1131) having a first waveguide comprising a lower cladding layer (220 under 1131), a core layer (130 on the right in fig. 3A), and an upper cladding layer (142), wherein the upper cladding layer comprises a first material (silica, par. 0043), wherein the first material of the upper cladding layer is disposed on the core layer and extends along an extent of a sidewall of the core layer from a top surface of the core layer to the lower cladding layer (fig. 3A); and a second arm (1132) having a second waveguide comprising a lower cladding layer (220 under 1132), a core layer (130 on the left in fig. 3A), and an upper cladding layer (141) wherein the upper cladding layer comprises a second material (TiO2, par. 0043) different than the first material, wherein the second material of the upper cladding layer is disposed on the core layer and extends along an extent of a sidewall of the core layer from a top surface of the core layer to the lower cladding layer (fig. 3A).
‘295 is silent to wherein the first arm is opposing and symmetrical to the second arm in the MZI.
However, it is well known in the art to make the arms of an MZI to be symmetric so as to minimize temperature dependence of the MZI.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the arms of ‘295 symmetric so as to minimize the temperature dependence of the MZI thus creating a more reliable signal output as a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.
In Re claim 14, ‘295 teaches wherein the second material is disposed over a first leg (left box as seen above) of the first arm and the first material is disposed over a second leg (right box as seen above) of the first arm, the second material extending from an interface with the sidewall of the core layer of the first leg to an interface with another sidewall of the core layer of the second leg (fig. 3A).
In Re claim 15, ‘295 teaches a third arm (1121 of bottom 1140) adjacent and coupled to the first arm, wherein a length of the second third arm is greater than a length of the first arm (fig. 11).
In Re claim 16, ‘295 teaches a fourth arm (1122 of bottom 1140) adjacent the second arm and opposing and symmetrical to the third arm (fig. 11).
In Re claim 17, ‘295 teaches wherein the second arm and the fourth arm include a negative TOC material (141) interfacing a silicon core (130 is silicon) layer.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHAD SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-1294. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 - 5.
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 1-571-272-2397. 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.
/CHAD H SMITH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874