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 .
Joint Inventors
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.
Response to Amendments
The amendments to claim 2, addressing the previous claim objections, are acknowledged. The previous claim objections are withdrawn. The amendments of claims 1, 5 7 and 8 addressing the 112(b) rejections are acknowledged. The rejections are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
As indicated in Applicant’s remarks, the scope of claim 1 has been changed by both including new subject matter and incorporating the subject matter of claim 8. No specific arguments are presented against the previous rejections. In-line comments are included in the rejections below indicating the examiners interpretation of specific limitations for clarity.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-7 and 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwatsuka, et. al., US 2020/0271963 A1 (English language equivalent of JP 2020-134874 cited in IDS of 9/27/2023 and as Patent Literature No. 1 in instant specification), in view of Hosoi, US 2001/0009594 A1 (English language equivalent of JP 2001-209018 A previously cited).
With regard to claim 1, Iwatsuka, in fig. 11 discloses an optical waveguide device comprising: a substrate 1 on which an optical waveguide 10 is formed; wherein the optical waveguide 10 is a folded type optical waveguide 10 in which an optical input port 10Pi and an optical output port 10Po4 of the optical waveguide are disposed at the same end of the substrate 1 [0016-0017].
Iwatsuka does not expressly disclose the minimum distance between the input port and the output port. Iwatsuka is the English language equivalent of HP 2020-134874, cited as Patent Literature No. 1 in the instant specification, which is describes a compact folded optical waveguide device having small waveguides of 1 μm, along the same lines as the instant invention. Thus Iwatsuka is believed to be admitted prior art having the same folded compact design as the instant invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that a minimum distance between the input port and output port of Iwatsuka is 1500 μm or lower, to achieve a compact design.
Iwatsuka also does not expressly disclose a monitoring grating with branching part.
The examiner notes that the present claim language “a branching part and a multiplexing part of the optical waveguide are not disposed on a line extending in a traveling direction of the light wave propagating from the monitoring optical waveguide into the grating” is related to the disclosure of fig. 10 and paragraph [0060] as indicated in Applicant’s remarks. However the language of paragraph [0060] does not match the claim language exactly because the claim omits the phrase “and an optical path of an optical component disposed outside the substrate”. This difference is noted and the claim language is given its plain and ordinary interpretation. The “a line extending in a traveling direction” is taken to mean any traveling direction of the monitoring optical waveguide, and that waveguide is shown as curved.
Hosoi teaches a Mach-Zehnder interferometer with monitoring, including a grating (9 of fig. 12 or 2 of fig. 18) with a monitoring optical waveguide which is branching from a branching part, for monitoring the output and provide feedback to both the input source and modulator. This monitoring arrangement could be easily incorporated into the Iwatsuka modulator of fig. 11, where the resulting device would have a grating connected to a monitoring optical waveguide that branches from a part of the optical waveguide, at least a part of the light wave propagating through the optical waveguide is outputted through the grating, and a branching part and a multiplexing part of the optical waveguide are not disposed on a line extending in a traveling direction of the light wave propagating from the monitoring optical waveguide into the grating (because the direction of the signal in the monitoring optical waveguide travels in several directions different from the direction of the signal propagating through the multiplexer).
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a monitor including the grating and monitoring optical waveguide that branches from the waveguide, as taught by Hosoi, in the modulation device of Iwatsuka, to provide feedback to both the input source and the modulator.
With regard to claim 2, the Iwatsuka device as combined with the teachings of Hosoi as described in the rejection of claim 1 above, teach an optical waveguide device wherein the optical waveguide includes a Mach-Zehnder interferometer, and at least part of the light wave form an output port of the Mach-Zehnder interferometer is outputted through the grating.
With regard to claim 3, the Iwatsuka device as combined with the teachings of Hosoi as described in the rejection of claim 1 above, teach an optical waveguide device wherein the optical waveguide is a rib type optical waveguide (see Iwatsuka fig. 2).
With regard to claim 5, the Iwatsuka device as combined with the teachings of Hosoi as described in the rejection of claim 1 above, teach an optical waveguide device wherein a light receiving element 10 is disposed on an upper side surface of the grating.
With regard to claim 6, the Iwatsuka device as combined with the teachings of Hosoi as described in the rejection of claim 1 above, teach an optical waveguide device wherein an optical absorption member that absorbs the light wave which is output from the grating 9 and which is not input into the light-receiving element 10 is provided (the light output from the grating which is not input to the light-receiving element will be absorbed by any element of the device that interacts with the light, thereby meeting the claim limitation).
With regard to claim 7, the Iwatsuka device as combined with the teachings of Hosoi as described in the rejection of claim 1 above, teach an optical waveguide device wherein an optical absorption member is disposed on the side of the grating opposite to a side of the monitoring optical waveguide (the light output from the grating which is not input to the light-receiving element will be absorbed by any element of the device that interacts with the light, thereby meeting the claim limitation).
With regard to claim 9, the Iwatsuka device as combined with the teachings of Hosoi as described in the rejection of claim 1 above, teach an optical waveguide device wherein a reinforcing member (89 in fig. 14) is disposed on a part of an upper surface of the substrate, and the grating is formed at a position at which the reinforcing member 89 is not disposed.
With regard to claims 10-12, Iwatsuka device as combined with the teachings of Hosoi as described in the rejection of claim 1 above, teach an optical waveguide device wherein and further discloses the limitations of claims 10-12 including: an optical fiber through which a light wave is input into the optical waveguide device or output from the optical waveguide device; a modulation electrode that modulates the light wave propagating through the optical waveguide is provided in the substrate, and an electronic circuit that amplifies a modulation signal to be input into the modulation electrode is provided; and an electronic circuit that outputs a modulation signal causing the optical modulation device to perform a modulation operation.
Hosoi, however, does not expressly disclose a case enclosing the device. Official notice is taken that cases are generally used to house modulator type devices, such as the one disclosed by Hosoi, to protect and house the delicate optical components.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a case with the Hosoi device to protect and house the delicate optical components such as the waveguides and photodetectors.
With regard to claim 13, the Iwatsuka device as combined with the teachings of Hosoi as described in the rejection of claim 1 above, teach an optical waveguide device of claim 13, except that claim 13 indicates that the grating is “formed in part of the optical waveguide”. The same embodiments of Hosoi render this claim obvious, as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above, simply because the area where the grating is located in Hosoi can be considered “the optical waveguide” instead of the “monitoring optical waveguide”.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwatsuka in view of Hosoi, as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Ushida, et. al., US 2013/0170793 A1 (cited on IDS of 9/27/2023).
With regard to claim 4, Iwatsuka in view of Hosoi discloses the optical waveguide device of claim 1, but does not expressly disclose a spot size converter that changes a mode field diameter of the light wave is provided in an end portion of the optical waveguide.
Ushida, in fig. 1A, teaches a spot size converter that changes a mode field diameter of the light wave is provided in an end portion of the optical waveguide.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a spot size converter in the Iwatsuka/Hosoi device that changes a mode field diameter of the light wave is provided in an end portion of the optical waveguide because it is effective at reducing conversion loss for the in-coupled light.
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 Thomas A Hollweg whose telephone number is (571)270-1739. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4.
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, Matthew W Such can be reached at (571)272-1570. 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.
/THOMAS A HOLLWEG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874