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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan on 07/01/2022. A copy of the JP2022-107132 application was received 07/10/2023.
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendment filed 10/22/2025 has been considered and entered.
The objection to the drawings set forth in the office action mailed 07/22/2025 is withdrawn in view of the applicant’s amended drawings.
The rejections under 35 USC 112b set forth in the office action mailed 07/22/2025 are withdrawn in view of the applicant’s amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments (Pages 8-9 of the remarks received 10/22/2025) with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1, 7, and 8 under 35 USC 102 and 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the claim amendments and new grounds for rejection.
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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With regards to claims 1, 7, and 8, each claim recites the limitation “…wherein each of the two first waveguides includes a first tapered waveguide as two first tapered waveguides…”. It is unclear whether the “…a first tapered waveguide…” of claims 1, 7, and 8 is supposed to comprise two “…tapered waveguides…”, the “…as two first tapered waveguides…” is further specifying that the optical device of claims 1, 7, and 8 will comprise a total of two first tapered waveguides, or some other intended meaning. The claims are indefinite because there is significant uncertainty regarding the intended meaning and scope of the above claim limitations.
Examiner’s note: For the purposes of further examination, the above limitations are considered as restating that each of the two first waveguides include a first tapered waveguide.
Claims 2-6 inherit the indefiniteness of claim 1 on which they depend.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sui (CN 108020889 B) in view of Masuda (JP H0886926 A).
With regards to claims 1 and 8, Sui discloses an optical communication apparatus comprising:
a light source (Sui/Fig18/Light source 2000 [Laser]);
an optical receiver that receives a reception signal from reception light by using: light received from the light source (Optical receiver 3000 [Fiber]; Reception signal and reception light [Light signals generated by element 2000 and propagated through the device]); and
an optical device that guides the light inside the optical receiver, wherein the optical device includes
two first waveguides that are arranged side by side on a substrate (Sui/Fig2/Two first waveguides [Defined by elements 1121, 1122, 1142, and 1143]; Fig9/Substrate 1400 [Substrate]); and
a single second waveguide that is arranged, on the substrate, so as to be side by side with and away from the two first waveguides (Fig2/Single second waveguide [Defined by element 1141 and the dark portion of the pictured device disposed to the right of the rightmost dotted line]), wherein
each of the two first waveguides includes
a first tapered waveguide (First tapered waveguides 1121 and 1122) as two first tapered waveguides, and
a second tapered waveguide that is connected to each first tapered waveguide of the two first tapered waveguides as two associated second tapered waveguides (Second tapered waveguides 1142 and 1143),
the single second waveguide includes
a third tapered waveguide that is disposed side by side with the two first waveguides (Third tapered waveguide 1141), and
a third waveguide that is connected to the third tapered waveguide on a side opposite to a side on which each first tapered waveguide of the two first waveguides are provided (Fig2/Third waveguide defined by dark portion of the pictured device to the right of the rightmost dotted line),
each first tapered waveguide of the two first waveguides has a structure constituted such that a waveguide width is gradually wider as each first tapered waveguide of the two first tapered waveguides is closer to an associated second tapered waveguide of the two associated second tapered waveguides (Fig2),
each of the two associated second tapered waveguides has a structure constituted such that a waveguide width is gradually narrower as an associated second tapered waveguide of the two associated second tapered waveguides is farther away from the first tapered waveguide (Fig2),
the third tapered waveguide has a structure constituted such that a waveguide width is gradually wider as the third tapered waveguide is closer to the third waveguide (Fig2).
Sui does not disclose
each of the two first waveguides as having a first structure constituted such that a gap between a first core centerline connecting a first start point and a first end point of one first tapered waveguide of the two first tapered waveguides, and a second core centerline connecting a second start point and a second end point of another first tapered waveguide of the two first tapered waveguides, gradually narrows from the first start point toward the first end point, and as having a second structure constituted such that a first gap between the first start point and the second start point is made wider than a second gap between the first end point and the second end point at a connection portion (Connection portion as circled below [Right]) between each first tapered waveguide of the two first tapered waveguides and the two associated second tapered waveguides.
However, the practice of configuring waveguides in the above fashion exits in the art as exemplified by Masuda.
Sui and Masuda are considered to be analogous in the field of optical communication devices. Sui discloses an optical device comprising two first tapered waveguides and two second tapered waveguides, as discussed above. Masuda teaches
each of two first waveguides (Masuda/Fig1/First waveguides 12 and 13) as having a first structure constituted such that a gap between a first core centerline connecting a first start point and a first end point of one first waveguide of the two first waveguides, and a second core centerline connecting a second start point and a second end point of another first waveguide of the two first waveguides (Masuda/Fig1/Core centerlines for each first waveguide as indicated below [Dotted lines]), gradually narrows from the first start point toward the first end point, and as having a second structure constituted such that a first gap (Masuda/Fig1/First gap as indicated below) between the first start point and the second start point is made wider than a second gap (Masuda/Fig1/Second gap as indicated below) between the first end point and the second end point at a connection portion between each first waveguide of the two first waveguides and the two associated second waveguides (Masuda/Fig1/Second waveguides 31 and 32).
PNG
media_image1.png
329
587
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the first tapered waveguides of Sui such that they adhered to the diverging structure suggested by Masuda since doing so would assist in allowing the light inputs for each respective first waveguide to come from locations that are more horizontally distant from one another.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sui (CN 108020889 B) in view of Masuda (JP H0886926 A) as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Barwicz (US 9645312 B2).
With regards to claim 2, Sui and Masuda together disclose the optical device according to claim 1, but do not disclose
each waveguide of the two first waveguides as having a structure constituted such that a third gap between the two associated second tapered waveguides at the second end point of each associated second tapered waveguide of the second associated second tapered waveguides is made narrower than the second gap.
However, the practice of configuring an optical device in the above manner exists in the art as exemplified by Barwicz.
Sui, Masuda, and Barwicz are considered to be analogous in the field of optical communication devices. Sui and Masuda together disclose an optical device comprising two first tapered waveguides, two second tapered waveguides, and a central third tapered waveguide. The third tapered waveguide of the device disclosed by Sui and Masuda is symmetrical about a central axis running down the length of said waveguide. Barwicz discloses a second waveguide (Barwicz/Fig1/Second waveguide as indicated below) having a structure constituted such that a first distance (Barwicz/Fig1/First as indicated below) between a second central end point of the second tapered waveguide and a central axis of the third tapered waveguide is smaller than a second distance (Barwicz/Fig1/First as indicated below) between a first central point of the second tapered waveguide and the central axis of the third waveguide (Barwicz/Fig1/First and second distances as shown below). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the optical device of Sui and Masuda such that a third gap between the two associated second tapered waveguides at the second end point of each associated second tapered waveguide of the second associated second tapered waveguides is made narrower than the second gap, as suggested by Barwicz, since doing so would allow for increased control over polarized light.
PNG
media_image2.png
362
447
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With regards to claim 3, Sui, and Masuda together disclose the optical device according to claim 1, but do not disclose the inclusion a bent waveguide that is optically coupled to an end point of each of the two associated second tapered waveguides and that is gradually away from a third waveguide disposed in the single second waveguide. However, the practice of including a bent waveguide optically connected to the end of a tapered waveguide exists in the art as exemplified by Barwicz.
Sui, Masuda, and Barwicz are considered to be analogous in the field of optical communication devices. Sui and Masuda together disclose an optical device comprising two first tapered waveguides, two second tapered waveguides, and a central third tapered waveguide. Barwicz teaches the inclusion a bent waveguide that is optically coupled to an end point of each a second tapered waveguide and that is gradually away from a third waveguide (Barwicz/Fig3/Bent portion defining “Gap 5”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include bent waveguides optically coupled to the ends of each of the second tapered waveguides in the optical device disclosed by Sui, and Masuda, since doing so would assist in reducing optical losses.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sui (CN 108020889 B) in view of Masuda (JP H0886926 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bian (US 20220091335 A1).
With regards to claim 4, Siu, and Masuda together disclose the optical device according to claim 1, further including a clad that covers the two first waveguides and the single waveguide on the substrate (Sui/Paragraph 39/“…silicon-based optical waveguide refers to a core layer and a cladding with different refractive indexes made on a silicon substrate…”), but are silent regarding whether or not each of the two first waveguides covered by a clad on the substrate is made of a material including Silicon Nitride (SiN), and whether or not the second waveguide covered by a clad on the substrate is made of a material including Silicon (Si). However, the practices of configuring waveguides within an optical device such that the waveguides are made of different silicon-inclusive materials exists in the art as exemplified by Bian.
Sui, Masuda, and Bian are considered to be analogous in the field of tapered waveguide couplers. Bian teaches first waveguides covered by a clad (Bian/Figs3&5&6/First waveguides [Cores 26 and 28] and clad 44 [Dielectric layer]) on a substrate as being made of a material including Silicon Nitride (SiN), and a second waveguide covered by a clad on the substrate as being made of a material including Silicon (Si) (Bian/Fig3/Second waveguide 12 [Second waveguide core]; Bian/Paragraph 35/Lines 9-15). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select different materials for the first and second waveguides disclosed by Sui and Masuda, as suggested by Bian since doing so would provide an avenue by which the different waveguides could have different indexes of refraction.
Sui, Masuda, and Bian do not explicitly disclose a cladding inclusive of SiO2. However, 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. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a material including SiO2 from which to create the cladding material since SiO2 has a low refractive index and would reduce light losses within the optical device.
With regards to claim 5, Sui and Masuda disclose the optical device according to claim 1, wherein, when the two first waveguides and the single second waveguide are covered by a clad on the substrate, a refractive index of a material of the clad is made smaller than a refractive index of a material of each of the first waveguides (Sui/Paragraph 39/“The silicon-based optical waveguide refers to a core layer and a cladding with different refractive indexes made on a silicon substrate; the propagation of the light is constrained by the cladding, and the light is constrained to propagate in the core layer”). Sui is silent regarding whether or not and the refractive index of the material of each of the first waveguides is made smaller than a refractive index of a material of the second waveguide. However, the practice of configuring optically coupled sets of waveguides within an optical device such that the waveguides have different refractive indices exists in the art as exemplified by Bian. Sui, Masuda, and Bian are considered to be analogous in the field of tapered waveguide couplers.
Bian teaches optically multiple optically coupled waveguides respectively made of materials with different refractive indices (Bian/Paragraph 35/Lines 9-15; Silicon nitride [Lower RI] and single-crystal silicon [Higher RI]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the first and second waveguides disclosed by Sui and Masuda such that the refractive index of the material of the first optically coupled waveguides was smaller than a that of the material of a second optically coupled waveguide since doing so would allow light to exhibit indirect transition between different waveguides and improve the characteristics of the optical device.
With regards to claim 6, Sui and Masuda together disclose the optical device according to claim 1, but are silent regarding whether or the two first waveguides and the single second waveguide are rib waveguides. However, the practice of configuring waveguides within an optical device as rib waveguides exists in the art as exemplified by Bian. Sui and Bian are considered to be analogous in the field of tapered waveguide couplers.
Bian teaches the use of rib waveguides within an optical device (Bian/Paragraph 20/Lines 10-15). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the waveguides disclosed by Sui and Masuda as rib waveguides as suggested by Bian since doing so help minimize losses within the optical device.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sui (CN 108020889 B) in view of Hatori (US 20140294341 A1), and in further view of Masuda (JP H0886926 A).
With regards to claims 1 and 8, Sui discloses an optical communication apparatus comprising:
a light source (Sui/Fig18/Light source 2000 [Laser]);
an optical transmitter (Fig18/Optical transmitter 1300 [Light modulator]) that performs optical modulation on light received from the light source and that transmits transmission light (Paragraph 81/“Light is coupled into the single mode waveguide 1200 through the rear end output region 1150 of the coupler 1100. The light is then input to the light modulator 1300 by the single mode waveguide 1200 for signal modulation loading. The light modulator 1300 couples the signal modulated input to another coupler 1100 connected to the single mode fiber through another single mode waveguide 1200, and couples the light into the single mode fiber 3000 through the front end coupling region 1110 of the coupler 1100”); and
an optical device that guides the light inside the optical receiver, wherein the optical device includes
two first waveguides that are arranged side by side on a substrate (Sui/Fig2/Two first waveguides [Defined by elements 1121, 1122, 1142, and 1143]; Fig9/Substrate 1400 [Substrate]); and
a single second waveguide that is arranged, on the substrate, so as to be side by side with and away from the two first waveguides (Fig2/Single second waveguide [Defined by element 1141 and the dark portion of the pictured device disposed to the right of the rightmost dotted line]), wherein
each of the two first waveguides includes
a first tapered waveguide (First tapered waveguides 1121 and 1122) as two first tapered waveguides, and
a second tapered waveguide that is connected to each first tapered waveguide of the two first tapered waveguides as two associated second tapered waveguides (Second tapered waveguides 1142 and 1143),
the single second waveguide includes
a third tapered waveguide that is disposed side by side with the two first waveguides (Third tapered waveguide 1141), and
a third waveguide that is connected to the third tapered waveguide on a side opposite to a side on which each first tapered waveguide of the two first waveguides are provided (Fig2/Third waveguide defined by dark portion of the pictured device to the right of the rightmost dotted line),
each first tapered waveguide of the two first waveguides has a structure constituted such that a waveguide width is gradually wider as each first tapered waveguide of the two first tapered waveguides is closer to an associated second tapered waveguide of the two associated second tapered waveguides (Fig2),
each of the two associated second tapered waveguides has a structure constituted such that a waveguide width is gradually narrower as an associated second tapered waveguide of the two associated second tapered waveguides is farther away from the first tapered waveguide (Fig2),
the third tapered waveguide has a structure constituted such that a waveguide width is gradually wider as the third tapered waveguide is closer to the third waveguide (Fig2).
Sui does not disclose
whether or not a transmission signal is used by the modulator, and
each of the two first waveguides as having a first structure constituted such that a gap between a first core centerline connecting a first start point and a first end point of one first tapered waveguide of the two first tapered waveguides, and a second core centerline connecting a second start point and a second end point of another first tapered waveguide of the two first tapered waveguides, gradually narrows from the first start point toward the first end point, and as having a second structure constituted such that a first gap between the first start point and the second start point is made wider than a second gap between the first end point and the second end point at a connection portion (Connection portion as circled below [Right]) between each first tapered waveguide of the two first tapered waveguides and the two associated second tapered waveguides.
However, the practices of supplying a modulator with a transmission signal and of configuring waveguides in the above fashion exit in the art as exemplified by Hatori and Masuda.
Sui and Hatori are considered to be analogous in the field of tapered waveguide couplers. Hatori discloses the supplying of a transmission signal to a modulator configured to modulate a light signal within an optical circuit (Hatori/Paragraph 56/Lines 5-11; “…electric signal…”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to supply a transmission signal to the modulator disclosed by Sui as suggested by Hatori, since doing so would provide an avenue by which the light parameters to be adjusted are communicated to the modulator.
Sui, Hatori, and Masuda are considered to be analogous in the field of optical communication devices. Sui discloses an optical device comprising two first tapered waveguides and two second tapered waveguides, as discussed above. Masuda teaches
each of two first waveguides (Masuda/Fig1/First waveguides 12 and 13) as having a first structure constituted such that a gap between a first core centerline connecting a first start point and a first end point of one first waveguide of the two first waveguides, and a second core centerline connecting a second start point and a second end point of another first waveguide of the two first waveguides (Masuda/Fig1/Core centerlines for each first waveguide as indicated below [Dotted lines]), gradually narrows from the first start point toward the first end point, and as having a second structure constituted such that a first gap (Masuda/Fig1/First gap as indicated below) between the first start point and the second start point is made wider than a second gap (Masuda/Fig1/Second gap as indicated below) between the first end point and the second end point at a connection portion between each first waveguide of the two first waveguides and the two associated second waveguides (Masuda/Fig1/Second waveguides 31 and 32).
PNG
media_image1.png
329
587
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the first tapered waveguides of Sui and Hatori such that they adhered to the diverging structure suggested by Masuda since doing so would assist in allowing the light inputs for each respective first waveguide to come from locations that are more horizontally distant from one another.
Conclusion
This prior art, made of record, but not relied upon, is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure since the following references have similar structure and/or use similar structure and/or similar optical elements to what is disclosed and/or claimed in the instant application:
Nara (US 20130330042 A1) [Fig1]
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Marc E Manheim whose telephone number is (703)756-1873. The examiner can normally be reached 6:30am - 5pm E.T., Monday - Tuesday and Thursday - Friday.
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 A Hollweg can be reached at (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 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.
/MARC E MANHEIM/Examiner, Art Unit 2874
/THOMAS A HOLLWEG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874