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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 2-4, 8-10 and 12-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/2/25.
The elected species D (Fig. 4) does not disclose the claimed bent structures with openings (claims 2, 8 and 12-15), the metamaterial structures being above or below the waveguide (claims 3, 4 and 16-20), the metamaterial structure and waveguide having the same radius of curvature (claim 9) or the metamaterial structures and waveguide being parallel (claim 10).
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 1, 5 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meade et al (US 5,526,449). Meade teaches:
1. A structure (Figs. 8a-b) comprising:
at least one bent waveguide structure (56); and
metamaterial structures (52) separated from the at least one bent waveguide structure (56) by an insulator material (58).
5. The structure of claim 1, wherein the metamaterial structures (52) are on sides of the at least one bent waveguide structure (56) (see Figs. 8a-b).
11. The structure of claim 1, wherein the at least one bent waveguide structure (56) and the metamaterial structures (52) are of different materials (waveguide is GaxAl1-xAs C8 L59-64 and the metamaterial structure is air, low-dielectrics or solids C6 L25-38).
Meade does not state that metamaterial structures being structured to decouple the at least one waveguide structure to simultaneously reduce insertion loss and crosstalk of the at least one bent waveguide structure. The limitations to decouple the waveguide to simultaneously reduce insertion loss and crosstalk at the bend are purely functional limitations and while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). "[A]pparatus 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) (emphasis in original). All of the structural limitations have been met.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meade as applied to claims 1 and 5 above, and further in view of Jiang et al (US 7,421,179 B1).
Meade teaches the structure previously discussed including the metamaterial structures (52) and bent waveguide structure (56) are on a same level of the device (see Fig. 8a).
Meade does not teach expressly:
6. The structure of claim 5, wherein the metamaterial structures and the at least one bent waveguide structure are composed of silicon-on-insulator material.
7. The structure of claim 5, wherein the metamaterial structures and the at least one bent waveguide structure are composed of Si material.
Jiang teaches a structure (100, Fig. 1) comprising metamaterial structures (102) surrounding a waveguide structure (108) wherein the metamaterial structures (102) and the at least one bent waveguide structure (108) are composed of silicon-on-insulator material (C5 L57 – C6 L3) and wherein the metamaterial structures (102) and the at least one bent waveguide structure (102) are composed of Si material (C5 L41 – C6 L3).
Meade and Jiang are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, waveguide structures surrounded by metamaterials.
At the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the materials of Meade to use SOI and Si for the waveguide and metamaterials as taught by Jiang.
The motivation for doing so would have been to reduce cost and complexity by using widely and well-known materials for waveguide and metamaterial structures.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following references teach bent waveguides surrounded by metamaterials: US 7609931, US 8258892, US 8692128, US 10989872, US 11061186.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN A LEPISTO whose telephone number is (571)272-1946. The examiner can normally be reached on 8AM-5PM EST M-F.
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.
/RYAN A LEPISTO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874