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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The prior art documents listed in the information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted by the applicant filed on February 9th, 2024 have all been considered by the examiner and made of record.
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yang et al. (US9709741 B2)
Regarding Claim 1, Yang et al. discloses a spot size converter configured to emit laser light comprising:
A first core layer (102, 402) extending in an emission direction, stacked on a cladding layer in a second direction (Figs. 1 & 4; Col. 3)
The first core layer having a flat shape in which a size in the second direction is smaller than a size in the third direction
The first core layer including a first tapered portion (410) in which a size decreases along the emission direction (Col. 3-4)
A second core layer (404) extending in the emission direction and spaced apart from the first core layer in a third direction (418) orthogonal to the emission direction (Fig. 4)
The second core layer including a second tapered portion (416) extending along the emission direction
The tapered portions (512,514) are disposed at a position where they overlap at least partially in the third direction (Fig. 5; Col. 7 49-55)
The first tapered portion decreases in size while the second tapered portion increases in size along the emission direction (Fig. 5)
Regarding Claim 2, Yang et al. explicitly discloses the first core layer (502) and the second core layer (506) extending along an emission direction, stacked on a cladding layer (504), wherein the core layers have core surfaces adjacent to the cladding layer. The first and second core surfaces overlapping in a second direction (Fig.5).
Regarding Claim 5, Yang et al. discloses that the second core layer is provided such that a size of an end portion, which is opposite to the emission direction, in the third direction is smaller than a size in the second direction. (Figs. 4-5)
Regarding Claim 6, Yang et al. explicitly discloses tapered waveguides (512, 514) with varying taper gradients (Col. 3-5), an absolute value of variation of the first tapered portion in the third direction is larger than an absolute value of variation of the second tapered portion.
Regarding Claim 7, Yang et al. teaches a position of an end portion of the first tapered portion opposite to the emission direction matches a position of an end portion of the second tapered portion opposite to the emission direction. (Fig. 5).
Regarding Claim 8, Yang et al. discloses a position of an end portion of the first tapered portion facing the emission direction matches a position of an end portion of the second tapered portion facing the emission direction. (Fig. 5).
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.
Claims 3 & 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US9709741 B2) in view of Tokushima et al. (US20130188910 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Yang et al. discloses first and second core layers, Yang et al. does not disclose that the first core layer is one of a plurality of first core layers arranged in the second direction with a cladding layer interposed between. Tokushima et al. discloses a plurality of core layers arranged in a direction orthogonal to the emission direction, stacked on a cladding. (Fig. 1; 0085-0087). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Yang to include a plurality of core layers arranged with a cladding as taught by Tokushima to enable multi-layer optical routing.
Regarding Claim 4, Yang et al. discloses first and second core layers, Yang et al. does not disclose a plurality of cladding layers or stacking forward/reverse orientations. Tokushima et al. discloses a plurality of cladding layers, and a plurality of core layers arranged relative to the cladding layers (Fig. 1; 0087). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Yang et al. for such stacking arrangements and overlapping surfaces as a matter of design choice in multilayer photonic structures.
Claims 9 & 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US9709741 B2) in view of Hatori et al. (9195001 B2).
Regarding Claim 9, Yang et al. teaches all the limitations of the parent claim, however it does not expressly teach a second core layer including one and other-side second core layers on opposite sides. Hatori et al. discloses that the second core layer includes a one-side second core layer and an other-side second core layer (13,14;33,34) disposed on opposite sides in a third direction (Fig.2; Col. 4). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Yang et al. to include one-side and other-side second core layers as taught by Hatori et al. in order to enable symmetric coupling.
Regarding Claim 10, Yang et al. and Hatori et al. disclose core layers formed relative to a cladding. Yang et al. does not explicitly disclose one-side and other-side core layers overlap in a second direction. Hatori et al. discloses that the one-side second core layer and the other-side second core layer are arranged adjacent to a cladding layer and overlap in a stacking direction (Figs. 3-5; Fig. 10). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date, to arrange the core layers of Yang et al. to overlap in a second direction, ensuring proper alignment.
Claims 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al., hereafter Yang, in view of Hatori et al. (US9195001 B2) and Paiam (US6353694 B1).
Regarding Claim 11, Yang et al. teaches all limitations of the parent claim, and Hatori et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 9. Hatori et al. discloses one side and other-side second core layers disposed on opposite sides (Fig. 2). Yang et al. and Hatori et al. do not expressly disclose a light combining portion or a third core layer configured to guide combined light. Paiam explicitly discloses a light combining portion configured to combine laser lights through the one-side second core layer and the other-side second core layer along with a third core layer configured to guide a laser light by the light combining portion. (Fig. 1; Col.2-3). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the light combining structure of Paiam into the device of Yang et al. and Hatori et al. to combine signals into a single output.
Regarding Claim 12, Yang et al. and Hatori et al. teach all the limitations of Claims 1 and 9, and Paiam teaches the light combining portion of Claim 11. Yang et al. and Hatori et al. do not expressly teach one and other side combining portions respective to core layers. Paiam explicitly discloses one-side and other-side combining portions on end portions of respective core layers in an emission direction, as well as a combined facing portion disposed between the combining portions (Fig. 1; Col. 1). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date, to provide tapered combining portions to improve coupling efficiency.
Regarding Claim 13, Yang et al. and Hatori et al. teach all the limitations of Claims 1 and 9, and Paiam teaches the light combining portion of Claim 11. Yang et al. and Hatori et al. do not expressly teach that a size of the combined facing portion in the third direction increases along the emission direction. Paiam expressly teaches a combined facing portion increases along the emission direction (Col. 3). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date, to configure the combined facing portion to increase in size along the emission direction for coupling efficiency.
Regarding Claim 14, Yang et al. and Hatori et al. teach all the limitations of Claims 1 and 9, and Paiam teaches the light combining portion of Claim 11. Yang et al. and Hatori et al. do not expressly teach inner bent portions configured to approach a combined facing portion. Paiam discloses core layers arranged to guide light toward a multi-mode interference region to reduce spacing. Bending waveguides toward a coupling region is a well-known technique in integrated species. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date, to include bent portions in the device of Yang et al. and Hatori et al. to reduce spacing and improve coupling efficiency.
Regarding Claim 15, Yang et al. and Hatori et al. teach all the limitations of Claims 1 and 9, and Paiam teaches the light combining portion of Claim 11. Yang et al. and Hatori et al. do not expressly teach a multi-mode interference device. However, Paiam explicitly discloses a multi-mode interference device having an input side connected to input core layers and output ports connected to an output core layers via a multimode region. (Fig. 1; Col. 2-3). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the light combining structure of Paiam implemented by a multi-mode interference device into the device of Yang et al. and Hatori et al. to combine signals into a single output.
Regarding Claim 16, Yang et al. and Hatori et al. teach all the limitations of Claims 1 and 9, and Paiam teaches the light combining portion of Claim 11. Yang et al. and Hatori et al. do not expressly teach inner bent portions configured to approach a combined facing portion. Paiam discloses core layers arranged to guide light toward a multi-mode interference region to reduce spacing. Bending waveguides toward a coupling region is a well-known technique in integrated species. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date, to include bent portions in the device of Yang et al. and Hatori et al. to reduce spacing and improve coupling efficiency.
Claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US9709741 B2), hereafter Yang, in view of Hatori et al. (US9195001 B2), Paiam (US6353694 B1), and Barreto et al. (US20230258964 A1).
Regarding Claim 17, Yang et al. and Hatori et al. teach all the limitations of Claims 1 and 9, and Paiam teaches the light combining portion of Claim 11. These references do not expressly teach a phase adjustment unit configured to adjust phases of laser lights propagated through the core layers. Barreto et al. explicitly discloses a phase adjustment unit configured to adjust phases of laser lights propagated through core layers (Fig. 2; see paragraphs 0006, 0064,0107). It would have been obvious to incorporate such phase adjustment into the device of Yang et al. and Hatori et al. to control interference.
Regarding Claim 18, Barreto et al. further discloses the phase adjustment unit is implemented by a heater (30) configured to heat core layers to adjust phase (see paragraph 0006).
Regarding Claim 19, Yang et al. teaches all limitations of the parent claim, and Hatori et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 9. Yang et al. explicitly discloses that the first and second core layers include silicon nitride (see paragraphs 15-20; Figs. 1, 5). Silicon nitride is a known compatible optical material for photonic structures.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NASIM KAIRI COOPER whose telephone number is (571)272-9685. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:00.
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 5712701739. 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.
/NASIM KAIRI COOPER/Examiner, Art Unit 2874
/THOMAS A HOLLWEG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights