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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 10/17/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding applicant’s argument, “As the coherence length of light in a material is proportional to wavelength squared divided by the index of refraction of the material (generally on the order of 1- 2), the coherence length of light in a material is generally longer than the wavelength of the light. Additionally, Pucket is silent with regard to the coherence length of light. Therefore, Pucket fails to disclose, teach, or suggest that the first cladding layers each have a first depth that is less than or equal to a coherence length of light to be transmitted through the waveguide in a material of the first cladding layers, and the second cladding layers each have a second depth that is less than or equal to a coherence length of light to be transmitted through the waveguide in a material of the second cladding layers, as recited in some form by independent Claims 1 and 12 as amended” Examiner respectfully asserts that applicant admits that coherence length is greater than wavelength of light traversing the waveguide. Since the thicknesses of the cladding layers of the arts of record are less than the wavelengths of light traversing each of those waveguides, the thicknesses of the claddings layers is also less than a coherence length of light traversing the waveguides.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 – 7 are 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 the core index of refraction being less than the second layer index of refraction.
The closest relevant prior art of record, Puckett et al. (U.S. PG Pub. # 2018/0081206 A1), teaches that the core index of refraction greater than both of the first and second index of refraction (par. 0041).
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 –
(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 – 3, 8 and 10 – 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Puckett et al. (U.S. PG Pub. # 2018/0081206 A1).
In Re claims 1 and 12, ‘206 teaches a waveguide comprising: a waveguide core having a core index of refraction (30, 332, pars. 0041 – 0042); and a cladding (26, 28) disposed about at least a portion of a perimeter of the waveguide core, the cladding comprising a plurality of layers that define a periodic index of refraction (pars. 0039, 0043),
wherein the plurality of layers comprises first cladding layers (26) and second cladding layers (28), the first cladding layers each have a first depth that is less than or equal to a coherence length of light to be transmitted through the waveguide in a material of the first cladding layers (par. 0053 teaches the thickness of each of the layers is much less than the wavelength of light traversing the waveguide 38 and as applicant admits that coherence wavelength is greater the wavelength of the light traversing the waveguide, thus thickness < wavelength < coherence length), and the second cladding layers each have a second depth that is less than or equal to a coherence length of light to be transmitted through the waveguide in a material of the second cladding layers (par. 0053 teaches the thickness of each of the layers is much less than the wavelength of light traversing the waveguide 38 and as applicant admits that coherence wavelength is greater the wavelength of the light traversing the waveguide, thus thickness < wavelength < coherence length),
wherein the plurality of layers comprises a core-adjacent layer having a core-adjacent layer index of refraction, and wherein the core index of refraction is greater than the core-adjacent layer index of refraction (par. 0041).
In Re claim 2, an apparatus claim must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997); See MPEP 2114 [R-1]). A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim (Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987); See MPEP 2114 [R-1]).
In Re claim 3, ‘206 teaches wherein the cladding has a thickness of 2 microns or less (par. 0040).
In Re claim 8, ‘206 teaches wherein at least one of the first cladding layers or the second cladding layers comprises SiO2, TEOS SiO2, vacuum, air, A12O3, Si3N4, Si, TiO2, or HfO2 (par. 0039).
In Re claim 10, ‘206 teaches wherein the waveguide core comprises one or more of A12O3, Si3N4, Si, TiO2, or HfO2 (par. 0041).
In Re claim 11, ‘206 teaches wherein the waveguide core is formed on a substrate (20).
Claims 1 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Auth et al. (U.S. PG Pub. # 2013/0034322 A1).
In Re claim 1, ‘322 teaches a waveguide comprising: a waveguide core (1) having a core index of refraction (figs. 1 and 1a); and a cladding (4) disposed about at least a portion of a perimeter of the waveguide core (fig. 1a), the cladding comprising a plurality of layers that define a periodic index of refraction (fig. 1a),
wherein the plurality of layers comprises first cladding layers (5) and second cladding layers (6), the first cladding layers each have a first depth that is less than or equal to a coherence length of light to be transmitted through the waveguide in a material of the first cladding layers (par. 0048 teaches that trenches and layers makeup up a fine structure, pars. 0103 – 0104 teaches that a width of the fine structures is a fraction of the wavelength, thus a width is less than a coherence length), and the second cladding layers each have a second depth that is less than or equal to a coherence length of light to be transmitted through the waveguide in a material of the second cladding layers (par. 0048 teaches that trenches and layers makeup up a fine structure, pars. 0103 – 0104 teaches that a width of the fine structures is a fraction of the wavelength, thus a width is less than a coherence length), wherein the plurality of layers comprises a core-adjacent layer (5) having a core-adjacent layer index of refraction, and wherein the core index of refraction is greater than the core-adjacent layer index of refraction (fig. 1a).
In Re claim 9, ‘322 teaches wherein the cladding is a distributed Bragg grating cladding (fig. 1a, par. 0103).
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shigeta et al. (U.S. Patent # 5,455,883).
In Re claim 1, ‘883 teaches a waveguide comprising: a waveguide core (45) having a core index of refraction (n.sub.c, abstract, col. 6, lines 47 – 63); and a cladding (46) disposed about at least a portion of a perimeter of the waveguide core, the cladding comprising a plurality of layers (41, 42) that define a periodic index of refraction,
wherein the plurality of layers comprises first cladding layers (41) and second cladding layers (42), the first cladding layers each have a first depth that is less than or equal to a coherence length of light to be transmitted through the waveguide in a material of the first cladding layers (col. 7, lines 14 – 15, as visible light is greater than 1nm which is less that coherent length as admitted by applicant), and the second cladding layers each have a second depth that is less than or equal to a coherence length of light to be transmitted through the waveguide in a material of the second cladding layers (col. 7, lines 14 – 15, as visible light is greater than 1nm which is less that coherent length as admitted by applicant),
wherein the plurality of layers comprises a core-adjacent layer (one of 41 or 42) having a core-adjacent layer index of refraction, and wherein the core index of refraction is greater than the core-adjacent layer index of refraction (col. 6, lines 58 – 60).
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 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