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 .
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 3, 4, 9, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2017/0003451 (“MA”).
Regarding claim 1, MA teaches a substrate type optical waveguide element (100) comprising: a bent waveguide (125) that guides a basic mode (B0), that converts an unneeded mode other than the basic mode (A0) to a slab mode (par. [0047]), and that is a rib type (FIG. 2); and a removing portion (120) that is arranged at an outer circumferential portion of the bent waveguide and that removes, from the bent waveguide, the slab mode converted in the bent waveguide (pars. [0049], [0052]; FIG. 1).
Regarding claim 3, MA teaches that the removing portion removes the slab mode from the bent waveguide by causing the slab mode converted in the bent waveguide to be optically transitioned and radiated from the bent waveguide (pars. [0044], [0052]).
Regarding claim 4, MA teaches that the removing portion is an absorbing portion that removes the slab mode from the bent waveguide by causing the slab mode converted in the bent waveguide to be optically transitioned and absorbed from the bent waveguide (pars. [0044], [0061]).
Regarding claim 9, MA teaches that the absorbing portion is an absorber that is arranged in a vicinity of an outer side slab arranged at the outer circumferential portion of the bent waveguide and that absorbs the slab mode received from the bent waveguide (FIG. 1;
pars. [0044], [0061]).
Regarding claim 17, MA teaches an optical communication apparatus comprising: a light source (pars. [0073], [0074]); an optical transmitter that optically modulates light received from the light source and that transmits transmission light by using a transmission signal
(pars. [0073], [0074]); an optical receiver (pars. [0073], [0074]) that receives a reception signal from reception light by using the light received from the light source; and a substrate type optical waveguide element (100) that guides the light in the optical transmitter and the optical receiver, wherein the substrate type optical waveguide element includes a bent waveguide (125) that guides a basic mode (B0), that converts an unneeded mode other than the basic mode (A0) to a slab mode (par. [0047]), and that is a rib type (FIG. 2), and a removing portion (120) that is arranged at an outer circumferential portion of the bent waveguide, and that removes the slab mode converted in the bent waveguide from the bent waveguide (pars. [0049], [0052];
FIG. 1).
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over MA in view of
US 2023/0056455 (“OKA”).
The applied reference has a common applicant with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
MA teaches the limitations of the base claim 1. MA further teaches that the bent waveguide is a rib type (FIG. 2). MA does not teach that the bent waveguide is an optical waveguide that is parallel to an easement curve having a curvature that varies continuously. OKA teaches a bent waveguide (21B1) that is an optical waveguide that is parallel to an easement curve having a curvature that varies continuously (FIG. 7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to modify the bent waveguide of MA so as to be parallel to an easement curve having a curvature that varies continuously, as taught by OKA. The motivation would have been to further assure only the slab mode is scattered and eliminated (par. [0055]).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Claims 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MA in view of US 2010/0158443 (“JEONG”).
MA teaches the limitations of the respective base claims 3 and 4. MA does not teach an optical waveguide that is arranged between the bent waveguide and the removing/absorbing portion. JEONG teaches an optical waveguide that is arranged between a bent waveguide and a removing/absorbing portion (FIGs. 1, 2, 8; pars. [0006]-[0011]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to modify the waveguide element of MA such that an optical waveguide is arranged between the bent waveguide and the removing/absorbing portion, s taught by JEONG. The motivation would have been to assure that only higher-order non-desired modes are filtered out (pars. [0006]-[0011]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 16 is allowed.
Claims 5-8, 10, 11, 13, and 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 5-8, the prior art of record, whether taken individually or in combination, when considered in light of the claimed subject matter as a whole and as interpreted in light of the Specification as originally filed, fails to disclose or render obvious that the removing portion is provided on a slab that is arranged at the outer circumferential portion of the bent waveguide, and is constituted of an excess slab that is formed such that an angle of incidence that is an angle formed by an incident traveling direction, in which the unneeded mode leaking from a rib of the bent waveguide is incident on a slab end of the slab, and a normal line of the slab end is less than a critical angle that is a threshold in which total reflection occurs.
Regarding claim 10, the prior art of record, whether taken individually or in combination, when considered in light of the claimed subject matter as a whole and as interpreted in light of the Specification as originally filed, fails to disclose or render obvious that the slab mode includes a first slab mode in which an unneeded mode guided from an input portion of the bent waveguide is converted in the bent waveguide, and a second slab mode in which an unneeded mode guided from an output portion of the bent waveguide is converted in the bent waveguide, and the removing portion includes a first radiation portion that radiates the first slab mode, and a second radiation portion that radiates the second slab mode.
Regarding claim 11, the prior art of record, whether taken individually or in combination, when considered in light of the claimed subject matter as a whole and as interpreted in light of the Specification as originally filed, fails to disclose or render obvious that a discontinuous point of light is arranged at an inner part slab by notching the inner part slab that is arranged at an inner circumferential portion of the bent waveguide.
Regarding claim 13, the prior art of record, whether taken individually or in combination, when considered in light of the claimed subject matter as a whole and as interpreted in light of the Specification as originally filed, fails to disclose or render obvious that the absorbing portion is constituted of an N doped slab that is a part of an area of a slab that is arranged at the outer circumferential portion of the bent waveguide, a P doped slab that is a part of an area of the slab that is arranged at the outer circumferential portion of the bent waveguide, a germanium material arranged on the slab, or a metal material arranged on the slab.
Regarding claims 15, the prior art of record, whether taken individually or in combination, when considered in light of the claimed subject matter as a whole and as interpreted in light of the Specification as originally filed, fails to disclose or render obvious a first conversion portion provided at an input portion of the bent waveguide; and a second conversion portion provided at an output portion of the bent waveguide, wherein the first conversion portion is a tapered waveguide that is connected to a first channel waveguide at the input portion of the bent waveguide and in which a slab width is increased from the first channel waveguide toward the bent waveguide, and the second conversion portion is a tapered waveguide that is connected to a second channel waveguide at the output portion of the bent waveguide and in which a slab width is decreased from the bent waveguide toward the second channel waveguide.
Regarding claims 16, the prior art of record, whether taken individually or in combination, when considered in light of the claimed subject matter as a whole and as interpreted in light of the Specification as originally filed, fails to disclose or render obvious a first radiation portion that is arranged at an outer circumferential portion of the first bent waveguide, and that removes the unneeded mode from the first bent waveguide by causing the slab mode converted in the first bent waveguide to be optically transitioned and radiated from the first bent waveguide; a first absorbing portion that is arranged in a vicinity of the first radiation portion and that absorbs the slab mode radiated at the first radiation portion; a second bent waveguide that guides the basic mode, that converts the unneeded mode other than the basic mode to the slab mode; a second radiation portion that is arranged at an outer circumferential portion of the second bent waveguide, and that removes the unneeded mode from the second bent waveguide by causing the slab mode converted in the second bent waveguide to be optically transitioned and radiated from the second bent waveguide; and a second absorbing portion that is arranged in a vicinity of the second radiation portion, and that absorbs the slab mode radiated at the second radiation portion, wherein a bend direction of each of the first bent waveguide and the second bent waveguide is opposite direction of a travelling direction of light, and an S-shaped bent waveguide is formed by connecting the first bent waveguide and the second bent waveguide.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JERRY M BLEVINS whose telephone number is (571)272-8581. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - 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 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.
/JERRY M BLEVINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874