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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 10, and 15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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, 2, 5 – 8, 10 – 12, 15, 19 – 22, 24 – 26 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Karimelahi et al. (U.S. PG Pub. # 2023/0280550 A1).
In Re claims 1 and 15, ‘550 teaches a semiconductor photonics device, comprising: a dielectric layer (108); and a multiple-layer optical coupler, in the dielectric layer, comprising: a first optical coupler layer (any three waveguide elements in a layer as seen in figs. 1A, 3A-6A, 8A, 10A – 12A, 14-31A, par. 0137) having a first top view profile (fig. 34); and a second optical coupler layer (any of the other layers of abovementioned figures), adjacent to the first optical coupler layer, having a second top view profile that is different from the first top view profile, wherein the first optical coupler layer comprises: a first segment (3308); and a plurality of second segments (3404, 3412) adjacent to and spaced apart from the first segment in a top view of the first optical coupler layer, wherein the plurality of second segments are on opposing sides of the first segment in a first direction, wherein a top view width of a portion of the first segment in the first direction increases along the first optical coupler layer in a second direction substantially perpendicular to the first direction from an end (area around 124) of the first optical coupler layer to a point (where 3308 becomes a constant width) of the first optical coupler layer, and wherein a top view width of the plurality of second segments in the first direction decreases along the first optical coupler layer in the second direction from the end of the first optical coupler layer to the point of the first optical coupler layer (fig. 34).
In Re claim 2, ’550 teaches wherein the first optical coupler layer is optically coupled with an optical signal input/output (par.0021); and wherein the second optical coupler layer is optically coupled with the first optical coupler layer (pars. 0023).
In Re claims 5 – 8, ‘550 teaches the material composition , the refractive index, and layout as claimed (pars. 0057, 0058 and fig. 1A).
In Re claim 10, ‘550 teaches a semiconductor photonics device, comprising: a dielectric layer (108); and a multiple-layer optical coupler, in the dielectric layer, comprising: a first optical coupler layer (any three waveguide elements in a layer as seen in figs. 1A, 3A-6A, 8A, 10A – 12A, 14-31A, par. 0137) comprising: a first end (124) adjacent to an optical signal input/output (I/O) (par. 0021); a second end opposing the first end (figs. 1A, 34); a first segment (3308); and a plurality of second segments (3404, 3412) adjacent to and spaced apart from the first segment in a top view of the first optical coupler layer, wherein the plurality of second segments are on opposing sides of the first segment in a first direction (3404, 3412), wherein a top view width of the first segment of the first optical coupler layer in the first direction increases along a second direction substantially perpendicular to the first direction from the first end to an intermediate point (where 3308 becomes constant) between the first end and the second end, and wherein the top view width of the plurality of second segments of the first optical coupler layer in the first direction decreases along the second direction from the first end to the intermediate point (fig. 34); and a second optical coupler layer (any of the other layers of abovementioned figures), adjacent to the first optical coupler layer, comprising: a third end adjacent to the optical signal I/O; and a fourth end opposing the third end (fig. 1A).
In Re claims 11 and 12, ‘550 teaches the claimed sidewalls as claimed (figs. 34).
In Re claim 19, ‘550 teaches overlapping as claimed (fig. 1A).
In Re claim 20, ‘550 teaches wherein forming the second optical coupler layer comprises: forming the second optical coupler layer to a top view length (from facet 124 to end of each segment) that is greater than a top view length (length of the center 3308 that starts from D (fig. 4C) to the point where the segment becomes constant) of the first optical coupler layer.
In Re claim 21, ‘550 teaches the claimed segments (figs. 30A, 31A).
In Re claim 22, ‘550 teaches wherein a top view width of a portion of the third segment in the first direction increases along the second optical coupler layer in the second direction from an end of the second optical coupler layer to a point of the second optical coupler layer (par. 0137).
In Re claim 24, ‘550 teaches wherein a top view width of an additional portion (right part of 3308) of the first segment in the first direction is substantially uniform along the first optical coupler layer in the second direction from the point of the first optical coupler layer to an additional end of the first optical coupler layer.
In Re claim 25, ‘550 teaches wherein the second optical coupler layer further comprises: a third segment; and a plurality of fourth segments adjacent to and spaced apart from the third segment in a top view of the second optical coupler layer, wherein the plurality of fourth segments are on opposing sides of the third segment in the first direction (figs. 30A, 31A).
In Re claim 26, ‘550 teaches wherein a top view width of the plurality of fourth segments of the second optical coupler layer in the first direction increases along the second direction from the third end to an intermediate point between the third end and the fourth end (par. 0137).
In Re claim 28, ‘550 teaches wherein a top view width of an additional portion (right portion of 3308) of the first segment in the first direction is substantially uniform along the second optical coupler layer in the second direction from the point of the second optical coupler layer to an additional end of the second optical coupler layer.
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 23 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karimelahi et al. (U.S. PG Pub. # 2023/0280550 A1).
‘550 teaches the device of claim 21 and 25, but is silent to wherein a pitch between the first segment and at least one of the plurality of second segments is approximately equal to a pitch between the third segment and at least one of the plurality of fourth segments.
Par. 0030 of ‘550 teaches that a distance between waveguide elements is chosen for a desired mode shape.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pitch between the first segment and at least one of the plurality of second segments to be approximately equal to a pitch between the third segment and at least one of the plurality of fourth segments so as to allow for a desired mode propagation as a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.
Conclusion
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHAD SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-1294. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 - 5.
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 1-571-272-2397. 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.
/CHAD H SMITH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights