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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (i.e., claims 1-7) in the reply filed on 9/24/25 is acknowledged.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Walker (US 20040131310).
Regarding claim 1, Walker teaches a waveguide structure, comprising: a deep rib waveguide 860 (e.g., fig. 8; deeper etched regions 840 essentially surround multimode mixing region 860) on a slab (e.g., fig. 8); and a plurality of shallow rib waveguides 870 880 890 on the slab (e.g., fig. 8; rib waveguides 870 880 890 are essentially surrounded by shallow etched regions 900), wherein: the deep rib waveguide 860 has a first etch-depth, the plurality of shallow rib waveguides 870 880 890 has a second etch-depth, and the first etch-depth is greater than the second etch-depth (e.g., fig. 8; ¶ 0119).
Regarding claim 2, Walker teaches the waveguide structure of claim 1 (see above), wherein a first sum of the first etch-depth of the deep rib waveguide and a first thickness of the slab under the deep rib waveguide is same as a second sum of the second etch-depth of the shallow rib waveguide and a second thickness of the slab under the shallow rib waveguide (e.g., fig. 8; the deeper etch is in the same slab as the shallow etches resulting in the claim 2 subject matter).
Regarding claim 3, Walker teaches the waveguide structure of claim 2 (see above), wherein: the deep rib waveguide is coupled to the plurality of shallow rib waveguides at an etch boundary (e.g., fig. 8; the right side of deep rib waveguide 860 is essentially at an etch boundary transitioning from a deep to shallow etch), the slab has the first thickness on one side of the etch boundary, proximate to the deep rib waveguide (e.g., fig. 8; the deeper etch 840 causes the slab to be thinner than in the shallow etch region which will have a thicker slab), and the slab has the second thickness on another side of the etch boundary, proximate to the plurality of shallow rib waveguides 870 880 890 (e.g., fig. 8).
Regarding claim 7, Walker teaches the waveguide structure of claim 1 (see above), wherein an optical signal is to travel from the deep rib waveguide 860 to the plurality of shallow rib waveguides 870 880 890 (e.g., fig. 8).
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.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walker (US 20040131310) as applied to claim 1 above with obviousness evidenced by {OEB} Rubinstein et al. (US 20220276455; “Rubinstein”).
Regarding claim 4, Walker does not explicitly teach wherein: each of the shallow rib waveguides {WGs} has a first end coupled to the deep rib waveguide and a second end coupled to another deep rib waveguide, and the another deep rib waveguide has the first etch-depth (e.g., fig. 8; Walker fig. 8 does not teach successive/concatenated/nested WGs).
However, successive/concatenated/nested WGs would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention at least as evidenced by Rubinstein (e.g., Rubinstein fig. 2; Rubinstein fig. 2 teaches successively split MMI WGs that would benefit from the deep and shallow rib structure of Walker to enhance optical coupling; the successive WGs would result in each of the shallow rib waveguides {WGs} has a first end coupled to the deep rib waveguide and a second end coupled to another deep rib waveguide, and the another deep rib waveguide has the first etch-depth) and thus would be obvious to provide each of the shallow rib waveguides {WGs} has a first end coupled to the deep rib waveguide and a second end coupled to another deep rib waveguide, and the another deep rib waveguide has the first etch-depth for the purpose of better coupling in a successive MMI WG splitter/combiner structure.
Thus, the claim 4 subject matter is rendered as obvious by Walker fig. 8 in light of the above reasoning as enlightened by Rubinstein.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walker (US 20040131310) as applied to claim 1 above with obviousness evidenced by {OEB} Parsons et al. (US 20060056845; “Parsons”).
Regarding claim 5, Walker does not explicitly teach the MMI coupler is coupled to the plurality of shallow rib waveguides on a first end of the MMI coupler (e.g., fig. 8; Walker teaches just one input at 1st end).
However, MMI couplers with multiple inputs were well known to the skilled artisan at least as evidenced by Parsons (e.g., ¶ 0059; fig. 6) and thus would be obvious to use in a given application (e.g., MPEP §2144.07 Art Recognized Suitability for an Intended Purpose).
Thus, the claim 5 subject matter is rendered as obvious by Walker fig. 8 in light of the above reasoning.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walker (US 20040131310) as applied to claim 1 above with obviousness evidenced by {OEB} Parsons et al. (US 20060056845; “Parsons”) and further OEB Wang et al. (US 20030123796; “Wang”) and/or Menezo (US 20010005438) .
Regarding claim 6, Walker does not explicitly teach a star coupler is coupled to the plurality of shallow rib waveguides {WGs} on a first end of the MMI coupler that also has a plurality of shallow rib WGs on an opposite 2nd end of the star coupler (e.g., fig. 8; Walker teaches just one input at 1st end in an MMI coupler).
However, MMI couplers with multiple inputs were well known to the skilled artisan at least as evidenced by Parsons (e.g., ¶ 0059; fig. 6) and thus would be obvious to use in a given application (e.g., MPEP §2144.07 Art Recognized Suitability for an Intended Purpose).
Moreover, utilizing star couplers as an alternative to MMI couplers was well known [See also: e.g. MPEP §2144.06 Art Recognized Equivalence for the Same Purpose [R-6 >I. < COMBINING EQUIVALENTS KNOWN FOR THE SAME PURPOSE, II. < SUBSTITUTING EQUIVALENTS KNOWN FOR THE SAME PURPOSE and/or MPEP §2144.07 Art Recognized Suitability for an Intended Purpose].
Furthermore, it was also well known for star couplers to have a plurality of input and a plurality of outputs at least as evidenced by Wang (e.g., see Wang claim 10). Therefore, the star coupler as claimed in claim 6 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mr. Michael Mooney whose telephone number is 571-272-2422. The examiner can normally be reached during weekdays, M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Uyen-Chau Le can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Center. Should you have questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). For checking the filing status of an application, please refer to <https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/checking-application-status/check-filing-status-your-patent-application>.
/MICHAEL P MOONEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874