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
2. The prior art documents submitted by applicant in the Information Disclosure Statement filed on 01/29/24, have all been considered and made of record (note the attached copy of form PTO/SB/08a).
Drawings
The drawings, filed on 01/29/24, are objected.
Figure 7 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.
Specification
4. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Thomson et al. (GB 2583393 A).
With respect to claim 1, Thomson et al. (figures 1-2) disclose an optical device comprising: a substrate (1); and a plurality of optical waveguide paths (11, 12, 13, 14) formed on the substrate (1) and comprising slab portions with different thicknesses (see the annotation in figure 2 below).
[AltContent: arrow] T12 (T is a thickness)
[AltContent: arrow] T11
[AltContent: arrow] T13 (T is a thickness)
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
248
406
media_image1.png
Greyscale
T14 (T is a thickness)
With respect to claim 2, Thomson et al. (figures 1-2) disclose the optical device, wherein the optical waveguide paths further comprise ridge portions (11, 12, 13, 14), and among the plurality of optical waveguide paths, the thicknesses of the ridge portions are different (see figure 2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) 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.
11. Claims 3-6, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Thomson et al. (as cited above).
With respect to claim 3, Thomson et al. substantially disclose all the limitations of the claimed invention except oxide layer covering the plurality of optical waveguide paths is formed.
However, the oxide layer covering the plurality of optical waveguide paths is considered to be obvious to provide high performance of optical signal transmission. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Thomson a et al. to include the above feature for the purpose of providing high performance of optical signal transmission. It is also noted that it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
With respect to claims 4-6, Thomson et al. substantially disclose all the limitations of the claimed invention except the thickness of any of the slab portions is smaller than the thickness of any of the plurality of different ridge portions and the thicknesses of the oxide layer on the ridge portions are equal and the longer the wavelength of light transmitted at the corresponding ridge portion is, the lower the ratio of the thickness of the slab portion to the thickness of the ridge portion is.
However, the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F. 2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Thomson a et al. to form the thickness of any of the slab portions is smaller than the thickness of any of the plurality of different ridge portions and the thicknesses of the oxide layer on the ridge portions are equal and the longer the wavelength of light transmitted at the corresponding ridge portion, the lower the ratio of the thickness of the slab portion to the thickness of the ridge portion as claimed, because the dimensions can be varied depending upon the device in a particular application.
With respect to claims 8-9, Thomson et al. substantially disclose all the limitations of the claimed invention except the optical waveguide paths are formed of oxides containing lithium and the oxides containing lithium are epitaxially grown lithium niobate or lithium tantalite.
However, the optical waveguide paths are formed of oxides containing lithium and the oxides containing lithium are epitaxially grown lithium niobate or lithium tantalite are considered to be obvious to provide high performance of optical signal transmission. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Thomson a et al. to include the above features for the purpose of providing high performance of optical signal transmission. It is also noted that it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
12. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Thomson et al. (as cited above) in view of Ho et al. (US-8644648-B2).
With respect to claim 7, Thomson et al. substantially disclose all the limitations of the claimed invention except electrodes are provided on the oxide layer, and the electrodes are formed on a side surface of the oxide layer.
However, Ho et al. (figures 1A and 2) teach a device including electrodes are provided on the oxide layer, and the electrodes (top and ground electrodes) are formed on a side surface of the oxide layer. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Thomson et al. to include the above features (accordance with the teaching of Ho) for the purpose of providing modulators with higher-bit rate optical fiber communication systems (column 2, lines 40-42).
Conclusion
13. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Liu (US-8319237-B2) discloses an optical receiver. Nakaya (US 6233372 B1) a waveguide path type polarization. Qian et al. (US-6921490-B1) teach an optical component.
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jennifer Doan whose telephone number is (571) 272-2346. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday from 7:00am to 3:30pm.
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, Thomas Hollweg can be reached on 571-270-1739. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JENNIFER DOAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874