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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 24 January 2024 complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the examiner has considered the information disclosure statement; please see attached forms PTO-1449.
Drawings
Figures 1-4 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-2 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent Application Publication 2006/0023288 to McBrien et al. (hereinafter “US1”), cited in Applicant’s IDS.
Regarding Claim 1, US1 describes an optical waveguide device (see Figs 3a-3b and 4a-4b, 8a-12a, 17a) comprising:
a substrate (101) consisting of a material having an electro-optic effect (see [0087]);
an optical waveguide (102, 103) formed on the substrate; and
control electrodes (105-108; 205-208) disposed on the substrate to interpose the optical waveguide between the control electrodes device (see Figs 3a-3b and 4a-4b) in order to apply an electric field to the optical waveguide (see [0089], [0092]-[0093]), wherein
the control electrodes include at least two or more electrode layers disposed in a sequence of first electrode layers (107/108; 207/208) and second electrode layers (105/106; 205/206) on the substrate,
an insulating layer (104/104a) that covers a space between the first electrode layers between which the optical waveguide is interposed and that extends to at least a part of upper surfaces of the first electrode layers is disposed, and
at least a part of the second electrode layers is formed on an upper surface of the insulating layer (see Figs 3a, 4a).
Regarding Claim 2, US1 describes the optical waveguide is a rib type optical waveguide (see Fig 10a).
Regarding Claim 6, US1 describes a gap (at 220, 222) formed in at least a part of a portion in which the insulating layer and the second electrode layers overlap with each other (see Fig 4a).
Regarding Claim 7, US1 describes the insulating layer (104a) not formed on at least a part of an upper surface of the optical waveguide, and other control electrodes disposed over the optical waveguide are provided (see Fig 17a).
Regarding Claim 8, US1 describes the control electrodes as modulation electrodes for applying a modulation signal (see [0025]).
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 3-5 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US1 as applied to Claim 1 above.
Regarding Claims 3 and 4, US1 is silent as to clearance between the electrode layers. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the waveguide device of US1 having the claimed clearances, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding Claim 5, US1 does not describe a shape of a corner portion of the insulating layer in contact with lower surfaces of the second electrode layers as a curved surface. However, it is well-known the art when forming layered optical structures that sharp corners (such as shown in Fig 8b of US1) create locations of increased stress that may cause breakage and/or delamination. A well-known method of reducing such stresses is to form a curved corner structure. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the insulating layer and second electrode layers of US1 such that the shape of a corner portion of the insulating layer in contact with lower surfaces of the second electrode layers is a curved surface. The motivation for doing so would have been to make use of a known technique for improving similar devices in the same way.
Regarding Claim 9, US1 describes an optical modulation device (24 in Fig 1, 44 in Fig 23, see [0087]) comprising: the optical waveguide device according to any one of claim 1 (see above); and an optical fiber (18, 30, 46, 64) through which a light wave is input into the optical waveguide or output from the optical waveguide. US1 does not describe a case accommodating the optical waveguide device. However, optical cases are well-known in the art and used to protect optical devices from environmental damage.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the optical modulation device of US1 with a case accommodating the optical waveguide device. The motivation for doing so would have been to protect the sensitive components of the device.
Regarding Claim 10, US1 describes the optical waveguide device including a modulation electrode for modulating a light wave propagating through the optical waveguide (see [0078] and [0087]-[0089]), and an electronic circuit that amplifies a modulation signal to be input into the modulation electrode of the optical waveguide device is provided inside the case (see [0116]).
Regarding Claim 11, US1 describes an optical transmission apparatus (10, Fig 1) comprising: the optical modulation device according to claim 9 (24, see above); and an electronic circuit (38) that outputs a modulation signal causing the optical modulation device to perform a modulation operation (see [0078]).
Conclusion
The prior art cited in the attached form PTO-892 are made of record and considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited prior art describes optical modulating devices including waveguides and electrodes.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JERRY RAHLL whose telephone number is (571)272-2356. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am-5:00pm.
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 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.
/JERRY RAHLL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights