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 .
Detailed Action
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species II (Figs. 6-19, claims 1-5)) in response/amendment is acknowledged. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
The prior art documents submitted by Applicant(s) in the information Disclosure Statement(s) have all been considered and made of record (note the attached copy of form(s) PTO-1449).
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
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.
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 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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over “Fathpour” et al., US 20180314004 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Fathpour teaches an optical waveguide device (see figs. 1-6; summary) comprising:
a first substrate 104/204 including a first optical waveguide 108/208 and a low refractive index layer 106/206 that covers the first optical waveguide and that is formed of a material having a lower refractive index than a refractive index of the first optical waveguide 108; and a second substrate 128 that is joined to the first substrate and that includes a rib type optical waveguide 122/112 (see at least parag. 0055) which is a second optical waveguide 122/112 and which is formed of a material having an electro-optic effect (see at least parag. 0063-0064), wherein the first optical waveguide and the second optical waveguide have parts optically coupled to each other (see figs. 1H and at least parag.0064), and in a plan view of the optical waveguide device, a protruding portion (i.e., 216 with projection at the left side)) is formed in the second substrate 222 (see fig. 2f) in a boundary portion in which the first optical waveguide 208/108 overlaps with the second substrate 228/128.
However, Fathpour does not teach a thickness of the second substrate in the protruding portion is set to be thinner than a thickness of the second substrate in the second optical waveguide. Nonetheless, such limitation is not germane as claimed in the claimed invention unless there is any significance associated with the limitation “thinner". Thus since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954). Thus It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Fathpour’s substrate portion with adjustability to fit the modified first optical waveguide portion for optical coupling with the first optical waveguide since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954).
The statements advanced in rejection of claim 1, above, as to the applicability and disclosure of and the motivation are incorporated herein in rejection of the following claims as follows:
2. The optical waveguide device according to claim 1, The optical waveguide device according to wherein a length of the protruding portion in a propagation direction of a light wave propagating through the first optical waveguide is 2 pm or lower (see at least parag./ 0022).
3. The optical waveguide device according to claim 1, The optical waveguide device according to wherein a width of the first optical waveguide in the boundary portion is set to be wider than a width of the first optical waveguide positioned on a front stage or a rear stage of the boundary portion (see at least fig. 1, with tapering and widening portion of the first waveguide).
4. The optical waveguide device according to claim 1, The optical waveguide device according to wherein a difference in a refractive index between the first optical waveguide and the second optical waveguide is 0.8 or lower ( see parag. 0064, since the first optical waveguide is formed of SiN, and the second substrate is formed of lithium niobate same as the applicant, then they would have such difference in refractive index)
5. The optical waveguide device according to claim 1, The optical waveguide device according to wherein the first optical waveguide is formed of SiN, and the second substrate is formed of lithium niobate (see parag. 0064).
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
Prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. In accordance with MPEP 707.05 the following references are pertinent in rejection of this application since they provide substantially the same information disclosure as this patent does. These references are:
IT 202200022593 A1
CN 115267966 A
US 20180314004 A1
US 20100307678 A1
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAVEH C KIANNI whose telephone number is (571)272-2417. The examiner can normally be reached on 9-19.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Thomas Hollweg can be reached on 570-1739. 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.
/KAVEH C KIANNI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874