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 § 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.
Claims 1-9, 12-18, & 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Harikai et al. (US PG Pub 2019/0157100; hereafter ‘100).
Claim 1: ‘100 is directed towards a method of dicing waveguides from an optical device substrate (the substrate is comprised of multiple element chips wherein each individual element is comprised of a layer of SiO-2 with embedded parallel wires; i.e. an optical grating; see title, abstract, #30B & #30D, Fig. 3 and ¶s 21 & 25), comprising:
disposing a protective coating only over the waveguides (the wafer is comprised of solely elements and the coating is applied to the area of dicing; see Figs. 1 & 2A; wherein each reads on a waveguide, there are two sets of parallel wires in the silicon dioxide matrix – i.e. 2 sets of gratings; see Fig. 3; given that there are two sides of the waveguide with different structures it is apparent that one side can be termed the input and the opposing side can be termed the output and each input and output is a grating because there is a change of material, thus it is apparent the diced optical devices have the same claimed structure) the optical device substrate comprising the waveguides disposed on a surface of the optical device substrate with areas therebetween (Figs. 2A & 2B), the areas of the optical device substrate exposed by the protective coating (Fig. 1), the protective coating comprising:
a polymer (¶ 41);
a solvent (¶s 42-50; and
an additive (¶ 51);
curing the protective coating via a cure process so that the protective coating is water-soluble after the solvent is removed by the cure process (¶s 52-53);
dicing the waveguides from the optical device substrate by projecting a laser beam to the areas between the waveguides (Fig. 1 & ¶s 55-63); and
exposing the protective coating to water to remove the protective coating from the waveguides that are diced (Fig. 1 & ¶ 64).
Claim 2: The solvent comprises an organic solvent and water (¶s 42-44).
Claim 3: The organic solvent can be a mixture of methanol, ethanol, acetone, ethyl-methyl-ketone, actenotrile, and dimethylacetamide (¶ 45).
Claim 4: The ether, the ether, and the alcohol have a boiling point less that 300ºC at 1 atm (¶ 45).
Claim 5: The organic solvent can be a mixture of methanol, ethanol, acetone, ethyl-methyl-ketone, actenotrile, and dimethylacetamide (¶ 45).
Claim 6: The polymer comprises polyvinyl acetate or polyvinyl pyrrolidone (¶ 41).
Claim 7: The polymer is polyvinyl pyrrolidone (¶ 41).
Claims 8 & 9: The polymer can be polyvinylpyrrolidone which is photocurable and is crosslinkable and thus comprises crosslinkers in the polymer (¶ 41).
Claim 12: The polymer is hydrophilic and water-soluble (¶ 41).
Claim 13: The protective coating is deposited by inkjet deposition (¶ 39).
Claim 14: ‘100 is directed towards a method of dicing waveguides from an optical device substrate (the substrate is comprised of multiple element chips wherein each individual element is comprised of a layer of SiO-2 with embedded parallel wires; i.e. an optical grating; see title, abstract, #30B & #30D, Fig. 3 and ¶s 21 & 25), comprising:
disposing a protective coating only over the waveguides (the wafer is comprised of solely elements and the coating is applied to the area of dicing; see Figs. 1 & 2A; wherein each reads on a waveguide, there are two sets of parallel wires in the silicon dioxide matrix – i.e. 2 sets of gratings; see Fig. 3; given that there are two sides of the waveguide with different structures it is apparent that one side can be termed the input and the opposing side can be termed the output and each input and output is a grating because there is a change of material, thus it is apparent the diced optical devices have the same claimed structure) the optical device substrate comprising the waveguides disposed on a surface of the optical device substrate with areas therebetween (Figs. 2A & 2B), the areas of the optical device substrate exposed by the protective coating (Fig. 1), the protective coating comprising:
a polymer (polyvinyl pyrrolidone; ¶ 41);
a solvent (¶s 42-50; and
an additive (¶ 51);
curing the protective coating via a cure process so that the protective coating is water-soluble after the solvent is removed by the cure process (¶s 52-53);
dicing the waveguides from the optical device substrate by projecting a laser beam to the areas between the waveguides (Fig. 1 & ¶s 55-63); and
exposing the protective coating to water to remove the protective coating from the waveguides that are diced (Fig. 1 & ¶ 64).
Claim 15: The solvent comprises an organic solvent and water (¶s 42-44).
Claim 16: The organic solvent can be a mixture of methanol, ethanol, acetone, ethyl-methyl-ketone, actenotrile, and dimethylacetamide (¶ 45).
Claim 17: The ether, the ether, and the alcohol have a boiling point less that 300ºC at 1 atm (¶ 45).
Claim 18: The organic solvent can be a mixture of methanol, ethanol, acetone, ethyl-methyl-ketone, actenotrile, and dimethylacetamide (¶ 45).
Claim 20: ‘100 is directed towards a method of dicing waveguides from an optical device substrate (the substrate is comprised of multiple element chips wherein each individual element is comprised of a layer of SiO-2 with embedded parallel wires; i.e. an optical grating; see title, abstract, #30B & #30D, Fig. 3 and ¶s 21 & 25), comprising:
disposing a protective coating only over the waveguides (the wafer is comprised of solely elements and the coating is applied to the area of dicing; see Figs. 1 & 2A; wherein each reads on a waveguide, there are two sets of parallel wires in the silicon dioxide matrix – i.e. 2 sets of gratings; see Fig. 3; given that there are two sides of the waveguide with different structures it is apparent that one side can be termed the input and the opposing side can be termed the output and each input and output is a grating because there is a change of material, thus it is apparent the diced optical devices have the same claimed structure) the optical device substrate comprising the waveguides disposed on a surface of the optical device substrate with areas therebetween (Figs. 2A & 2B), the areas of the optical device substrate exposed by the protective coating (Fig. 1), the protective coating comprising:
a polymer, the polymer comprises polyvinyl acetate or polyvinyl pyrrolidone (¶ 41);
a solvent (¶s 42-50; and
an additive (¶ 51);
curing the protective coating via a cure process so that the protective coating is water-soluble after the solvent is removed by the cure process (¶s 52-53);
dicing the waveguides from the optical device substrate by projecting a laser beam to the areas between the waveguides (Fig. 1 & ¶s 55-63); and
exposing the protective coating to water to remove the protective coating from the waveguides that are diced (Fig. 1 & ¶ 64).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/13/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regards to applicant’s argument that ‘100 does not teach a plurality of waveguides comprising the claimed input and output coupling gratings; the Office does not find this argument convincing because as discussed above, the structures of ‘100 which read on the optical devices with the waveguides inherently have two sides which can be termed input and output sides and will act as coupling gratings because they have changes in material (i.e. a grating) and they inherently couple the internal structure with any light the input and output are exposed to. The Examiner notes that the terms do not provide anything more than broadest reasonable interpretation because applicant did not define the terms in the original disclosure or provide any specific structure beyond the terms.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JAMES M MELLOTT whose telephone number is (571)270-3593. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM-4:30PM CST.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/James M Mellott/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights