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, see remarks, filed on 5/19/26, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1, 2, and 5 – 8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of Spector et al. (U.S. PG Pub. # 2011/0170825 A1) in view of Cardenas et al. (U.S. PG Pub. # 2019/0384009 A1).
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, 2 and 5 – 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spector et al. (U.S. PG Pub. # 2011/0170825 A1) in view of Cardenas et al. (U.S. PG Pub. # 2019/0384009 A1).
In Re claims 1 and 5, ‘825 teaches an optical waveguide device comprising: an optical waveguide (14 and 16) formed on a substrate (18); wherein the optical waveguide is a rib type optical waveguide (figs. 3A – 4, 5D), a spot size converter including the rib type optical waveguide (figs. 3A, 3B, 5D), in the spot size converter, both a width of the rib type optical waveguide and a thickness of the rib type optical waveguide are decreased toward an end portion of the substrate (pars. 0037, 0043), and at least a part of a side surface of the rib type optical waveguide of the spot size converter which contacts the substrate has a slope shape formed with a curved surface (Pars. 0048, 0049, 0052) to increase a contact area between the rib type optical waveguide and the dielectric layer.
‘825 is silent to a dielectric as claimed wherein a width of the dielectric layer is also decreased toward the end portion of the substrate to control a mode field diameter of the spot size converter.
However, it is well known in the art to apply a dielectric covering to cover optical waveguides, which has a lower refractive index than the optical waveguide, so not only to protect from external environmental factors but also to help to confine and guide light within the optical waveguide.
Furthermore, ‘009 teaches a waveguide taper (1003b) with a tapered dielectric (1001, 1006) covering the waveguide so as to maximize modal overlap for efficient mode coupling (par. 0049).
Thus, 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 device of ‘825 to add a dielectric layer covering the rib type optical waveguide, which becomes part of the spot size converter and functions as a core part of the optical waveguide as claimed so as to not only protect from external environmental factors but also to help to confine and guide light within the optical waveguide and to modify the width of the dielectric layer as taught by ‘009 to make the width of the dielectric layer to decrease toward the end portion of the substrate as claimed so as to maximize modal overlap for efficient mode coupling as a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.
Furthermore, 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 2, ‘825 teaches the claimed shapes (fig. 7C).
In Re claims 6 – 8, the previous combination teaches the device of claim 1, and that the device is useful for transmitting light between waveguides of different geometry (‘825, par. 0005) in silicon components including modulators, detectors, filters, attenuators, and multiplexors (‘825, par. 0004), but is silent to a case accommodating the optical waveguide device; and an optical fiber through which a light wave is input into the optical waveguide or output from the optical waveguide, a modulation electrode, and electronic circuitry as claimed.
However, it is well known in the art to use a case to house optical components
such as that of claim 1 and to use an optical fiber to transfer light into or out of the device of claim 1, so as to allow communication with photonic integrated circuitry amongst different circuits and to use a modulation electrode and electronic circuitry as claimed, within the case to house modulators, detectors, filters, attenuators, and/or multiplexors commonly found in photonic integrated circuitry for communication between the external optical fiber, the device of claim 1 and the aforementioned circuitry so as to allow for control of the light signals within the circuitry such as ensuring optimal timing of the transfer of individual signals thus enabling transmission of information across the light signals allowing for use in networking systems as a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.
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
Prosecution Insights