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 9/26/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding applicant’s argument “The amendments to claim 1 further clarify that the length direction of the strip structure is the waveguide direction….In claim 1, edges corresponding to the first and second side faces are the length edge and height edge of the bar structure” Examiner respectfully asserts that “edge” is not defined in the instant application, nor is “waveguide direction”. Examiner asserts that waveguide direction does not define a specific direction. Furthermore, applicant argues that “the grating 5 of Chen requires multiple trenches and strips arrangement between trenches, as one trench alone cannot form a grating. In amended claim 1, there is only one first trench claimed at the top of the core layer, so the number of first trench in claim 1 is different from the number of trenches in Chen”. However, the claim does not recite only one trench.
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 – 4 and 6 – 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen et al. (CN-111257996-A).
In Re claim 1, ‘996 teaches an optical waveguide structure (figs. 1 and 2), comprising: a lower cladding layer composed of a first dielectric layer (2, silica, pg. 6 of translation); and a core layer composed of a patterned structure of a second material layer (3, pg. 6 of translation), wherein the core layer presents a strip structure; the strip structure has a first side face and a second side face on two sides of a width edge of the strip structure (annotated below as a horizonal direction of fig. 2) thereof, and the first side face and the second side face both extend along a length direction (annotated below in fig. 1) of the strip structure the length direction of the strip structure is a waveguide direction (direction of a thickness of the core); a first trench (opening between 3rd and 4th side faces) is formed in a top region of the core layer, the first trench has a third side face and a fourth side face (annotated below), the third side face and the fourth side face are located between the first side face and the second side face, and the third side face and the fourth side face both extend along the length direction of the strip structure; an upper cladding layer (4) fully fills the first trench, extends to (the definition of to includes contacting) a top surface of the core layer outside the first trench, and coats the first side face and the second side face (as seen in the figs. below); and a refractive index of the second material layer is greater than a refractive index of the first dielectric layer (pg. 6 of translation), and the refractive index of the second material layer is greater than a refractive index of the upper cladding layer (pg. 6 of translation).
In Re claim 2, ‘996 teaches wherein the optical waveguide structure adopts a semiconductor on insulation (SOI) substrate (fig. 2); the SOI substrate comprises a bottom semiconductor substrate (1, silicon, pg. 6 of translation), a dielectric buried layer (2, silica), and a top semiconductor layer (3, silicon, pg. 6 of translation); the first dielectric layer is composed of the dielectric buried layer; and the second material layer is composed of the top semiconductor layer (fig. 2).
In Re claims 3 and 4, ‘996 teaches wherein a material of the bottom semiconductor substrate comprises silicon (pg. 6 of translation); a material of the dielectric buried layer comprises an oxide layer (silica, pg. 6 of translation); and a material of the top semiconductor layer comprises silicon (pg. 6 of translation) and wherein a material of the upper cladding layer comprises an oxide layer (silica, pg. 6 of translation).
In Re claims 6 and 7, ‘996 teaches wherein a grating coupler is formed on the SOI substrate, and the grating coupler is composed of the patterned structure of the second material layer and comprises a plurality of third trenches formed by etching the second material layer and a plurality of grating lines each located between the third trenches and composed of the second material layer (as seen in figs. below). Furthermore, Applicant is claiming the product including the process of making the structure, and therefore is of "product-by-process" nature. The courts have been holding for quite some time that the determination of the patentability of product-by-process claim is based on the product itself rather than on the process by which the product is made. In re Thrope, 777 F. 2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985); and patentability of claim to a product does not rest merely on a difference in the method by which that product is made. Rather, it is the product itself which must be new and unobvious. Applicant has chosen to claim the invention in the product form. Thus a prior art product which possesses the claimed product characteristics can anticipate or render obvious the claim subject matter regardless of the manner in which it is fabricated. A rejection based on 35 U.S.C. section 102 or alternatively on 35 U.S.C. section 103 of the status is eminently fair and acceptable. In re Brown and Saffer, 173 USPQ 685 and 688; In re Pilkington, 162 USPQ 147.
In Re claim 8, ‘996 teaches wherein the first trench is located in a middle region of the core layer in the width direction (as seen in figs. below).
[AltContent: arrow]Length direction
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
488
380
media_image1.png
Greyscale
3rd and 4th side faces
1st side face 2nd side face
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hassan et al. (U.S. PG Pub. # 2016/0124145 A1).
In Re claim 1, ‘145 teaches an optical waveguide structure (figs. 1 or 6), comprising: a lower cladding layer composed of a first dielectric layer (13 is an oxide or BOX); and a core layer composed of a patterned (18 or 9) structure of a second material layer (2, silicon, par. 0042, 0079), wherein the core layer presents a strip structure; the strip structure has a first side face and a second side face on two sides of a width edge of the strip structure (faces are the ends of 18 in fig. 1 or 9 in fig. 6), and the first side face and the second side face both extend along a length direction (into the page or vertically) of the strip structure, the length direction of the strip structure is a waveguide direction (a thickness of the core); a first trench is formed in a top region of the core layer, the first trench has a third side face and a fourth side face (faces are sides of a middle ridge of 18 or 9), the third side face and the fourth side face are located between the first side face and the second side face, and the third side face and the fourth side face both extend along the length direction (into the page or vertically) of the strip structure; an upper cladding layer (22 or 4) fully fills the first trench, extends to (to means contact) a top surface of the core layer outside the first trench, and coats the first side face and the second side face; and a refractive index of the second material layer is greater than a refractive index of the first dielectric layer, and the refractive index of the second material layer is greater than a refractive index of the upper cladding layer (par. 0059).
In Re claim 2, ‘145 teaches wherein the optical waveguide structure adopts a semiconductor on insulation (SOI) substrate (par. 0038); the SOI substrate comprises a bottom semiconductor substrate (10, silicon), a dielectric buried layer (13, oxide), and a top semiconductor layer (2, 9, 14, 18, pars. 0007, 0042, 0078, silicon); the first dielectric layer is composed of the dielectric buried layer; and the second material layer is composed of the top semiconductor layer (figs. 1 or 6).
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hassan et al. (U.S. PG Pub. # 2016/0124145 A1).
‘145 teaches the structure of claim 2, and a plurality of photonic cells (fig. 5, par. 0065), but is silent to wherein a plurality of core layers are formed on the dielectric buried layer, a region between the core layers is a second trench, and the upper cladding layer fully fills the second trench.
However, 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 structure of ‘145 to not have the second material between each column of L, Mod, Mux, and C of fig. 5, thus making a second trench, whereby the adjacent columns are a plurality of core layers and the trench along with the adjacent columns is filled with the upper cladding as claimed, so as to ensure that cross talk doesn’t occur between transmitters during propagation and coupling to external devices as a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.
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 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
Prosecution Insights