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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/6/26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 2 and 5 – 8 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 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 layer as claimed.
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.
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 as a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.
In Re claim 2, ‘825 teaches the claimed shapes (fig. 7C).
In Re claims 6 – 8, ‘825 teaches the device of claim 1, and that the device is useful for transmitting light between waveguides of different geometry (par. 0005) in silicon components including modulators, detectors, filters, attenuators, and multiplexors (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
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