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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The prior art documents submitted by applicant in the Information Disclosure Statement(s) filed on June 6, 2024 have all been considered and made of record (note the attached copy(ies) of form PTO-1449).
Drawings
Eight sheets of drawings were filed on February 14, 2024 and have been accepted by the examiner.
Inventorship
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.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (US 6,631,225 B2, herein “Lee”).
Regarding claims 1 and 9, Lee discloses a mode multiplexer comprising:
a first optical waveguide (Fig. 3 shows core 102 and cladding 106) comprising a first end (optical fiber side) and a second end (taper 108), wherein the first end is wider than the second end; and
a second optical waveguide (Fig. 4 shows core 104 and cladding 106) comprising a third end (110), wherein the second optical waveguide (104 is n2) has a higher index of refraction than the first optical waveguide (102 is n1), wherein the first optical waveguide (Col. 3, lines 42-57 and Col. 4, lines 49-59) and the second optical waveguide are arranged such that when the first optical waveguide and the second optical waveguide are viewed along a first axis:
a length of the first optical waveguide and a length of the second optical waveguide extend along a second axis orthogonal to the first axis; the first end is non-overlapping with the third end; and the second optical waveguide partially overlaps the second end.
PNG
media_image1.png
141
366
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 2 and 10. The mode multiplexer of Claim 1 and Claim 9, wherein, when the first optical waveguide and the second optical waveguide are viewed along the first axis, the first end is aligned with the third end (along the horizontal axis as shown in Fig. 1).
Claims 3 and 11. The mode multiplexer of Claim 1 and Claim 9, wherein the second optical waveguide comprises a fourth end (at the label “High Index Difference Waveguide Side”) wider than the third end (110).
Claims 4 and 12 . The mode multiplexer of Claim 3 and Claim 11, wherein, when the first optical waveguide and the second optical waveguide are viewed along the first axis, the second end is aligned with the fourth end (along the horizontal axis as shown in Fig.1).
Claims 5 and 13. The mode multiplexer of Claim 3 and Claim 11, wherein an optical signal in the first optical waveguide optically couples into the second optical waveguide as the optical signal propagates from the first end towards the second end. Lee discloses in Claim 9 teaches the mode is transformed in size, shape, and speed as it propagates between the first and second cores. Claim 10 further teaches the optical signal can propagate bi-directionally between the first and second cores.
Claims 6 and 14. The mode multiplexer of Claim 5 and Claim 13, wherein the optical signal comprises a first mode when the optical signal is in the first optical waveguide, wherein the optical signal comprises a second mode when the optical signal is in the second optical waveguide, and wherein the second mode has more lobes than the first mode. Lee discloses in Claim 12 the second tapered region provides and effective refractive index change to a propagating optical mode. Lee’s device functions as a mode converter wherein lower order mode (few lobes) converts to a higher-order mode (more lobes). Since Lee teaches the structural limitations of claims 1, 3, and 5, and Lee’s mode converter is bi-directional, thus the examiner considers Lee teaches mode conversion from lower order mode to higher order mode resulting in “more lobes than in the first mode.”
Claims 7 and 15. Lee discloses the mode coupler of Claim 5 and Claim 14, wherein the width of the first end is wider than the width of the second end (Fig. 1). As such the examiner considers the width of the second end of Lee’s mode coupler prevents the optical signal from propagating to the second end inasmuch as the function as broadly recited. See MPEP 2112.01 (I).
Claims 8 and 16. Lee discloses the first optical waveguide comprises silicon (silicon oxynitride), and wherein the second optical waveguide comprises silicon nitride (Col. 4, lines 50-53).
Regarding Claims 9-16, the method steps are not patentably distinct from the product of claims 1-8 since the operation of the of the mode coupler of Lee would anticipate the operational steps as recited in claims 9-16. See rejection to claims 1-8.
Regarding claim 17, Lee discloses a mode multiplexer comprising:
a silicon nitride waveguide (104) comprising a first end (“High Index Difference Waveguide Side”) and a second end (taper 110), wherein the first end is wider than the second end; and
a silicon waveguide (silicon oxynitride 102), wherein the silicon nitride waveguide (104) and the silicon waveguide are arranged such that an optical signal propagating from the first end towards the second in in the silicon nitride waveguide optically couples into the silicon waveguide (the mode coupler is bi-directional coupler, Col. 4, lines 24-32), and wherein a width of the second end prevents the optical signal from propagating to the second end. In Fig. 1, Lee discloses the width of the first end is wider than the width of the second end (Fig. 1). As such the examiner considers the width of the second end of Lee’s mode coupler prevents the optical signal from propagating to the second end inasmuch as the function as broadly recited. See MPEP 2112.01 (I).
Claim 18. The silicon waveguide (102) comprises a third end (108) and a fourth end (“Optical Fiber side”) wider than the third end.
Claim 19. The first end is aligned with the third end in the horizontal direction.
Claim 20. The optical signal comprises a first mode when the optical signal is in the silicon nitride waveguide, wherein the optical signal comprises a second mode when the optical signal is in the silicon waveguide, and wherein the second mode has more lobes than the first mode. Lee discloses in Claim 12 the second tapered region provides and effective refractive index change to a propagating optical mode. Lee’s device functions as a mode converter wherein lower order mode (few lobes), lower order modes are found in silicon waveguide, converts to a higher-order mode (more lobes), higher order modes are found in silicon nitride waveguide. Lee therefore, teaches converting from lower order mode to higher order mode, which would necessarily have “more lobes than in the first mode.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892:B--G.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Erin D Chiem whose telephone number is (571)272-3102. The examiner can normally be reached 10 am - 6 pm.
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 A. 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.
/ERIN D CHIEM/Examiner, Art Unit 2874
/THOMAS A HOLLWEG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights