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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 February 6, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s Amendment filed February 6, 2026 has been fully considered and entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The prior art documents submitted by applicant in the Information Disclosure Statement filed on March 3, 3026 have all been considered and made of record (note the attached copy of form PTO-1449).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1, lines 8-10, states (emphasis added):
“the vertical spot side convertor configured to:
perform vertical spot size processing on a first electromagnetic wave signal by using the N geometric waveguides, to output a second electromagnetic wave signal into a first receiver”
Claim 1, lines 20-22, states:
“wherein the first receiver comprises a horizontal spot size converter, the horizontal spot size converter is a tapered waveguide whose widest part is connected to the vertical spot size converter and whose width decreases in a transmission direction of the second electromagnetic wave.”
Claim 2 states (emphasis added):
“The apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the first receiver is a first waveguide, the first waveguide comprises one or more of an optical fiber, a waveguide chip, or an external waveguide; and the apparatus further comprises:
a horizontal spot size converter, configured to:
perform horizontal spot size expansion processing on a third electromagnetic wave signal output from a second waveguide, to output the first electromagnetic wave signal, wherein the second waveguide comprises one or more of an optical fiber, a waveguide chip, or an external waveguide.”
Applicant’s Figure 9 is provided below for reference:
PNG
media_image1.png
356
835
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 1 requires the vertical spot size converter to process the first electromagnetic wave signal and output the second electromagnetic wave signal, which agrees with the labels in Figure 9.
Claim 1 requires that the horizontal spot size converter has a width decreasing in a transmission direction of the second electromagnetic wave signal, which also agrees with the labels in Figure 9.
Claim 2, however, requires that the horizontal spot side converter process the third electromagnetic waveguide signal, which does not agree with the labels in Figure 9. The horizontal spot size converter processes the second electromagnetic wave signal, which has been output by the vertical spot size converter in Figure 9.
Claim 2 then requires the horizonal spot size converter outputs the first electromagnetic wave signal, but that does not agree with the labels in Figure 9 because the first electromagnetic wave signal is input into the vertical spot size converter before being converted to the second electromagnetic wave signal that is input into the horizontal spot size converter. Additionally, as illustrated in Figure 9, the horizonal spot size converter outputs a third electromagnetic wave signal.
Regarding claim 2; the wording of claim 2 is confusing, particularly because the wave signals are not numbered in the order they are transmitted and received through-out the disclosed device. As explained in detail above, claim 2 is claiming something that is impossible, specifically that the first electromagnetic waveguide signal is output by the horizontal spot size converter.
Also regarding claim 2; Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and defines “a horizontal spot size converter” in line 4 of claim 2. However, claim 1 has previously defined “a horizontal spot size converter” in line 20 of claim 1. Is this the same converter? Are they different converters?
Regarding claim 2, and claims 3, 4, and 9, which depend from claim 2; where there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. As stated in In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims. See MPEP 2173.06 II. Since claim 2 is unclear for the reasons discussed above, and no reasonable interpretation of the limitations in question are apparent, claims 2-4 and 9 have not been further treated with respect to prior art. Please note that this is not an indication of allowable subject matter.
Regarding claim 10; the claim recites the limitations “the N geometric waveguides” in line 2. This limitation lacks antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required. The examiner suggests changing “the N geometric waveguide” to – N geometric waveguides—to overcome this rejection.
Additionally, claim 10 recites the limitation “N geometric waveguides” in line 7-8 of the claim. Assuming these are the same N geometric waveguide mentioned in line 2, the examiner suggests changing “N geometric waveguides” in lines 7-8 of claim 10 to – the N geometric waveguides--.
Regarding claim 11; the claim recites “the first receiver comprises a first waveguide, the first waveguide is one or more of an optical fiber, a waveguide chip, an external waveguide, or a laser” in lines 1-3 of the claim. The use of “the first receiver” is additionally in the context of the claim, wherein the claim goes on to define that the first receiver is a first waveguide and the first waveguide may be a laser. A laser is a transmitter, wherein transmitting is the opposite function of receiving, thus further rendering claim 11 indefinite. Additionally, while lasers may include a waveguide, waveguides are not lasers, therefore, these are not considered to be equivalent elements in the art.
Additionally regarding claim 11; the claim recites (emphasis added) “receiving, by a horizontal converter, a third electromagnetic wave signal output from a second waveguide, and performing horizontal spot size expansion processing on the third electromagnetic wave signal, to output the first electromagnetic wave signal” in lines 4-6 of the claim. As discussed above with respect to Figure 9, it’s unclear how the horizontal spot size converter is processing the third electromagnetic signal (see Figure 9) that is output from the horizontal spot size converter (the transmission direction is in the direction of decreasing width of the horizontal spot size converter; see claim 10), and output the first electromagnetic wave signal that is received by the vertical spot size converter. Furthermore, is the “a horizontal converter” the same convert defined in base claim 10? Is it a different converter?
Regarding claim 11, and claims 12 and 13, which depend from claim 11; where there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. As stated in In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims. See MPEP 2173.06 II. Since claim 11 is unclear for the reasons discussed above, and no reasonable interpretation of the limitations in question are apparent, claims 11-13 have not been further treated with respect to prior art. Please note that this is not an indication of allowable subject matter.
Regarding claim 20; the claim recites (emphasis added) “a horizontal spot size converter, configured to: preform horizontal spot size processing on a third electromagnetic wave signal received from a second waveguide, to output the first electromagnetic wave signal” in lines 4-6 of the claim.
As discussed above with respect to Figure 9, it’s unclear how the horizontal spot size converter is processing the third electromagnetic signal (see Figure 9) that is output from the horizontal spot size converter (the transmission direction is in the direction of decreasing width of the horizontal spot size converter; see claim 10), and output the first electromagnetic wave signal that is received by the vertical spot size converter. Furthermore, is the “a horizontal converter” the same convert defined in base claim 10? Is it a different converter?
Regarding claim 20; where there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. As stated in In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims. See MPEP 2173.06 II. Since claim 20 is unclear for the reasons discussed above, and no reasonable interpretation of the limitations in question are apparent, claim 20 has not been further treated with respect to prior art. Please note that this is not an indication of allowable subject matter.
Inventorship
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.
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.
Claims 1, 5, 6, 8, 10, 14, 15, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimoda (US 2003/0138216 A1) in view of Fondeur et al. (US 2017/0269301 A1) and Zhang (US 2016/0291254 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 19; Shimoda discloses a termina device comprising a spot size conversion apparatus (see Figure 14), and a spot size conversion apparatus (see Figure 14), comprising
a vertical spot size converter (see Figure 14) wherein the vertical spot size converter comprises N geometric waveguides (522, 523, 524), a part (g1, g2, g3) between any two adjacent geometric waveguides is filled with a filling material (clad material, 512), each of the N geometric waveguides (522, 523, 524) comprises an incident surface and an emergent surface, a refractive index (n(0); refractive index of clad layer; see Figures 12B, 13B) of the filling material (clad 512) in the part is less than refractive indices (n(2), n(3), n(4); see Figures 12B and 13B, and paragraphs 86 and 88) of the (any) two adjacent geometric waveguides (cores 522, 523, 524), and
geometric feature sizes between respective incident surfaces and respective emergent surfaces of the N geometric waveguides decrease in a first direction (see Figure 14); and
the vertical spot size converter is configured to:
perform vertical spot size processing on the first electromagnetic wave signal by using the N geometric waveguides (522, 523, 524), to output a second electromagnetic wave signal to a first receiver (coupled waveguide 521 or fiber 26), and send the second electromagnetic wave signal to a first receiver (i.e. coupled to waveguide 521 or fiber 26) wherein the vertical spot size processing comprises vertical spot size expansion processing or vertical spot size reduction processing (the spot size is expanded for a beam of light traveling from core 521 to fiber 26, and reduced for a beam of light traveling from fiber 26 to core 521),
wherein an angle range of an incident angle or an emergent angle between the first electromagnetic wave signal (wave signal within waveguide 521 or within optical fiber 26) and a first geometric waveguide in the N geometric waveguides (522 or 524, respectively) is a first range, an angle range of an incident angle or an emergent angle between an electromagnetic wave signal output from each geometric waveguide (522, 523, 524) and a next geometric waveguide is the first range, and the first range is between 0 degrees and 180 degrees and is not 90 degrees (this is true due to Snell’s law for transmitted light at the angled boundaries between the N geometric waveguides 522, 523, and 524).
Shimoda does not disclose that an incident angle or an emergent angle between an electromagnetic wave signal output from each geometric waveguide (522, 523, 524) and a next geometric waveguide (522, 523, 524) are the same and an angle range of the incident angle or the emergent angle between the electromagnetic wave signa output from each geometric waveguide and the next geometric waveguide is the first range, and the first range is between 0 degrees and 180 degrees and is not 90 degrees.
In Figure 14 of Shimoda, labeled below, the geometric waveguides having angled entrance/exit surfaces having different angles with respect to adjacent geometric waveguides, thus providing for incident and emergent angles that are different.
PNG
media_image2.png
340
468
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fondeur et al. teaches that adjacent geometric waveguides of a spot size converter may alternatively have entrance and exit surfaces that have the same angles with respect to adjacent geometric waveguides (see Figures 1C and 1D below), wherein the angles are the same angles between adjacent segments, and the angles are between 0 and 180 degrees and are not 90 degrees, for the purpose of reducing loss (see paragraphs 25-37).
PNG
media_image3.png
397
506
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Thus, before the effective filing date of the present invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to alternatively form the geometric waveguides of Shimoda such that an incident angle or an emergent angle between an electromagnetic wave signal output from each geometric waveguide and a next geometric waveguide are the same and an angle range of the incident angle or the emergent angle between the electromagnetic wave signa output from each geometric waveguide and the next geometric waveguide is the first range, and the first range is between 0 degrees and 180 degrees and is not 90 degrees, for the purpose of reducing optical loss, since this was a known alternative prior art arrangement as suggested by the teachings of Fondeur et al. and one of ordinary skill could have combined the elements by known coupling methods with no change in their respective functions to yield predictable results. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Neither Shimoda or Fondeur et al. disclose that the first receiver comprises a horizontal spot size converter, the horizontal spot size converter is a tapered waveguide whose widest part is connected to the vertical spot size converter and whose width decreases in a transmission direction of the second electromagnetic wave.
Zhang discloses a spot size converter having a first waveguide (fiber 3) coupled to a second waveguide (waveguide 2) with a spot size converter (1) there-between, wherein the spot size converter includes a horizontal spot size converter (11; see paragraph 55) and a vertical spot size converter (12, 13; see paragraph 57) for the purpose of providing spot size conversion between a larger waveguide (3) coupled to the vertical spot size converter and a smaller waveguide (2) coupled to the horizontal spot size converter (11).
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to further provide a horizontal spot size converter, wherein the horizontal spot size converter is a tapered waveguide whose widest part is connected to the vertical spot size converter and whose width decreases in a transmission direction of the second electromagnetic wave for the purpose of coupling light from the larger size optical fiber (526) through the vertical and horizontal spot size converters to a smaller size waveguide, since the provision of horizontal spot size converter in combination with vertical spot size converters is known for this reason in the prior art and one of ordinary skill could have combined the elements by known coupling methods with no change in their respective functions to yield predictable results. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 5; wherein the first electromagnetic wave signal is received, the first electromagnetic wave signal is output from a third waveguide (waveguides 522/523/524 are third waveguides that form the vertical spot size converter, receive the first electromagnetic wave signal and output the second electromagnetic wave signal; see Figure 14), and the third waveguide (522/523/524) is one or more of an optical fiber, a waveguide chip, or an external waveguide.
Regarding claim 8; the first direction (the direction in which the waveguides 522/523/524 of Shimoda gradually decrease; see Figure 14) is an opposite direction of a transmission direction of the first electromagnetic wave signal (the signal is transmitted from the vertical spot size converter 522/523/524 of Shimoda to the fiber 26), and the vertical spot size converter (522/523/524) is configured to: perform the vertical spot size reduction processing on the received first electromagnetic wave signal by using the N geometric waveguides, to generate the second electromagnetic wave signal.
Regarding claim 10; Shimoda, Fondeur et al., and Zhang teach and/or suggest a spot size conversion method, applied to a vertical spot size converter, wherein the vertical spot size converter (see the rejection of claims 1 and 19 above) comprises the N geometric waveguides, a part between any two adjacent geometric waveguides is filled with a filling material, each of the N geometric waveguides comprises an incident surface and an emergent surface, wherein the method comprises:
receiving, by a vertical spot size converter (522/523/524), a first electromagnetic wave signal;
performing vertical spot size processing on the first electromagnetic wave signal by using N geometric waveguides (522, 523, 524), to output a second electromagnetic wave signal; and
sending the second electromagnetic wave signal to a first receiver (the optical fiber and/or waveguide 20 receive the second electromagnetic wave signal depending on propagation direction of the signal);
wherein
the vertical spot size processing comprises vertical spot size expansion processing or vertical spot size reduction processing (depending on propagation direction of light, respectively),
an angle range of an incident angle or an emergent angle between the first electromagnetic wave signal and a first geometric waveguide in the N geometric waveguides is a first range, an angle range of an incident angle and an emergent angle between an electromagnetic wave signal output from each geometric waveguide and a next geometric waveguide are the same and an angle range of the incident angle or the emergent angle between the electromagnetic wave signal output from each geometric waveguide and the next geometric waveguide is the first range, and the first range is between 0 degrees and 180 degrees and is not 90 degrees (see the rejection of claims 1 and 19 above).
Shimoda does not disclose that an incident angle or an emergent angle between an electromagnetic wave signal output from each geometric waveguide (522, 523, 524) and a next geometric waveguide (522, 523, 524) are the same and an angle range of the incident angle or the emergent angle between the electromagnetic wave signa output from each geometric waveguide and the next geometric waveguide is the first range, and the first range is between 0 degrees and 180 degrees and is not 90 degrees.
In Figure 14 of Shimoda, labeled below, the geometric waveguides having angled entrance/exit surfaces having different angles with respect to adjacent geometric waveguides, thus providing for incident and emergent angles that are different.
PNG
media_image2.png
340
468
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fondeur et al. teaches that adjacent geometric waveguides of a spot size converter may alternatively have entrance and exit surfaces that have the same angles with respect to adjacent geometric waveguides (see Figures 1C and 1D below), wherein the angles are the same angles between adjacent segments, and the angles are between 0 and 180 degrees and are not 90 degrees, for the purpose of reducing loss (see paragraphs 25-37).
PNG
media_image3.png
397
506
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Thus, before the effective filing date of the present invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to alternatively form the geometric waveguides of Shimoda such that an incident angle or an emergent angle between an electromagnetic wave signal output from each geometric waveguide and a next geometric waveguide are the same and an angle range of the incident angle or the emergent angle between the electromagnetic wave signa output from each geometric waveguide and the next geometric waveguide is the first range, and the first range is between 0 degrees and 180 degrees and is not 90 degrees, for the purpose of reducing optical loss, since this was a known alternative prior art arrangement as suggested by the teachings of Fondeur et al. and one of ordinary skill could have combined the elements by known coupling methods with no change in their respective functions to yield predictable results. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Neither Shimoda or Fondeur et al. disclose that the first receiver comprises a horizontal spot size converter, the horizontal spot size converter is a tapered waveguide whose widest part is connected to the vertical spot size converter and whose width decreases in a transmission direction of the second electromagnetic wave.
Zhang discloses a spot size converter having a first waveguide (fiber 3) coupled to a second waveguide (waveguide 2) with a spot size converter (1) there-between, wherein the spot size converter includes a horizontal spot size converter (11; see paragraph 55) and a vertical spot size converter (12, 13; see paragraph 57) for the purpose of providing spot size conversion between a larger waveguide (3) coupled to the vertical spot size converter and a smaller waveguide (2) coupled to the horizontal spot size converter (11).
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to further provide a horizontal spot size converter, wherein the horizontal spot size converter is a tapered waveguide whose widest part is connected to the vertical spot size converter and whose width decreases in a transmission direction of the second electromagnetic wave for the purpose of coupling light from the larger size optical fiber (526) through the vertical and horizontal spot size converters to a smaller size waveguide, since the provision of horizontal spot size converter in combination with vertical spot size converters is known for this reason in the prior art and one of ordinary skill could have combined the elements by known coupling methods with no change in their respective functions to yield predictable results. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 14; wherein the first electromagnetic wave signal is received, the first electromagnetic wave signal is output from a third waveguide (waveguides 522/523/524 are third waveguides that form the vertical spot size converter, receive the first electromagnetic wave signal and output the second electromagnetic wave signal; see Figure 14), and the third waveguide (522/523/524) is one or more of an optical fiber, a waveguide chip, or an external waveguide.
Regarding claim 17; the first direction (the direction in which the waveguides 522/523/524 of Shimoda decrease; see Figure 14) is an opposite direction of a transmission direction of the first electromagnetic wave signal (the signal is transmitted from the vertical spot size converter 522/523/524 of Shimoda to the fiber 26), and the method comprises performing, by the vertical spot size converter (522/523/524) the vertical spot size reduction processing on the received first electromagnetic wave signal by using the N geometric waveguides, to generate the second electromagnetic wave signal.
Regarding claims 6 and 15; Shimoda, Fondeur et al. and Zhang teach and/or suggest discloses the apparatus according to claims 5 and 14, as applied above, but does not disclose that the horizontal spot size converter configured to perform horizontal spot size reduction processing on the second electromagnetic wave signal, to output a third electromagnetic wave signal, wherein the third electromagnetic wave signal is received by a fourth waveguide, and the fourth waveguide comprises one or more of an optical fiber, a waveguide chip, or an external waveguide.
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have the horizontal spot size converter be configured to perform horizontal spot size reduction processing on the second electromagnetic wave signal (an electromagnetic signal output by the vertical spot size converter to the horizontal spot size converter coupled thereto), to output a third electromagnetic wave signal, wherein the third electromagnetic wave signal is received by a fourth waveguide, and the fourth waveguide is one or more of an optical fiber, a waveguide chip, or an external waveguide, by incorporating the vertical spot size converter between vertical spot size converter (522/523/524) and the fourth waveguide (521) in the invention of Shimoda, as suggested by the teachings of Zhang, to provide for both horizontal and vertical spot size adjustments to the light travelling there-through to minimize optical loss.
Regarding claim 18; Zhang teaches that the thicknesses of the horizontal spot size converter (11) and the vertical spot size converter (12/13) are the same (see Figure 6).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 6, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Initially, the examiner notes that the amendment did not appear to address all of the issues discussed in detail in the rejections presented under 35 U.S.C. § 112, and that the present amendment introduced additional concerns under this heading. Please see the rejection set forth above.
Applicant states that the one of the technical advantages of the claimed spot size conversion apparatus is to generate an electromagnetic wave signal that matches a mode field diameter of the receiving waveguide.
The examiner notes that this is a commonly recognized advantages of spot size converters in general. Spot size converters adjust the spot size of a signal and that is conventionally done to provide mode matching to reduce signal loss.
Applicant argues that Zhang discloses that the light propagates through the horizontal spot size converter and enters the vertical spot size converter and that in contract the vertical spot size processing and the second electromagnetic wave signal is output into the first receiver that comprises a horizontal spot size converter.
The examiner notes that optical waveguides are bi-directional structures. Zhang is relied upon to illustrate that a horizontal spot size converter may be combined with a vertical spot size converter. The direction the light travels is an intended use. A light having a larger spot size may be coupled into or out of the vertical spot size converter and a light having a smaller spot size may be coupled out of or into the horizontal spot size converter, respectively.
This is the same for the present invention. See Figure 9 of the present application, which illustrates both examples. PLC spot size converter 1 includes vertical and horizontal spot size converters and coupled light from optical fiber 1 to the PLC waveguide chip. PLC spot size converter 2 receives light from the PLC ship and coupled light to optical fiber 2, wherein the converter structure is flipped to mode match accordingly.
The examiner notes that the direction that the light is coupled within the spot size converter device is an intended use. It has been held that “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does” (Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc. 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990)); that 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 USPQ 2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)); and that if a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the preamble, then it meets the claim (In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997)). See MPEP § 2111.02, II and MPEP § 2114, II.
Applicant states that Zhan does not disclose or teach the recited first receiver.
Zhang is not relied upon for teaching a receiver.
It is worth nothing that the receiver in the present case is an optical waveguide, either an optical fiber or a planar waveguide, both of which may receive and guide an optical signal.
Applicant states that the arrangement of claim 1 is advantageous because it allows the output wave signal of the spot size converter to match the mode field of the receiving waveguide.
Spot size converters are commonly used to match mode fields of different sized waveguide to reduce loss. There is nothing novel or new about this use of spot size converters.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHELLE R CONNELLY whose telephone number is (571)272-2345. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9 AM to 5 PM.
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.
/MICHELLE R CONNELLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874