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 .
Due to an oversight regarding the disposition of claims 6-7, the 7/30/26 Non-Final Rejection is hereby withdrawn and replaced by the instant Office action. Any inconvenience this may have caused Applicant is regretted.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group Ic (i.e., claims 1, 4-7) in the reply filed on 5/13/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the criteria at the bottom of page 4 and top of page 5 [i.e., items (1)-(3); see ¶ 8.14.01 in MPEP §806.05(j)] in the 9/24/25 restriction requirement {RR} are not met. This is not found persuasive because the materially different design/function/effect as claimed and mutual exclusivity as claimed of each of groups Ia-f are described in items a.-f. on pp. 5-6 of the 9/24/25 RR [at least see the “not present in” statements in items a.-f.]. Further, Applicant has not gone on record stating items Ia-f are obvious variants as claimed (e.g., see the last ¶ of page 8 in the 9/24/25 RR; moreover, 9/24/25 RR on page 5 lines 5-6 clearly states there is nothing of record to show Ia-f are obvious variants with respect to one another). Items (1)-(3) of ¶ 8.14.01 were properly addressed in the 9/24/25 RR. Apparently, Applicant is confusing the 9/24/25 RR with a species RR. The 9/24/25 RR is a related inventions RR and not a species RR.
The 9/24/25 RR requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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) 1, 4-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20130156370; “Kim”) with obviousness evidenced by {OEB} Lee et al. (US 20020031296; “Lee”) and/or Park et al. (US 20190146153; “Park”).
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches a device comprising: a light source 2000 (e.g., figs. 10-11; ¶ 0075: both directions) configured to emit a light beam (e.g., figs. 10-11; ¶ 0075); and a photonic integrated circuit (PIC) [e.g., ¶ 0003: mode size converter to realize optical coupling to a PIC; in figs. 10-11 the source fiber 2000 is located on the right side of the coupler so the PIC is on the left side of the coupler] including an edge coupler configured to couple the light beam into a waveguide {WG} of the PIC [e.g., ¶ 0003: mode size converter to realize optical coupling to a PIC; in figs. 10-11 the source fiber 2000 is located on the right side of the coupler so the PIC is on the left side of the coupler in order to achieve the purpose of the coupler designed by Kim; the left side of the coupler has an edge and is an edge coupler; it is noted that it is extremely well known for a PIC to have a WG to couple light from an edge coupler; see also ¶ 0004: edge coupling for a mode size converter], the edge coupler 1000 (e.g., figs. 10-11) comprising: a first waveguide section (e.g., the far right end of element 205 in figs. 10, 11) characterized by a first thickness and a first width (e.g., figs. 10-11; far right end of element 205 has a width comparable to the optical fiber {OF} 2000 at the right end of element 205); a second waveguide section 205 coupled to the first waveguide {WG} section (e.g., figs. 10-11; the far right end of element 205 is the 1st WG section; element 205 tapering down from the far right end of element 205 is part of the 2nd WG section), the second waveguide section characterized by the first thickness (e.g., figs. 10-11; part of the 2nd WG section, located between the far right end of element 205 and to the right of tip 115 shows a uniform thickness for element 205; see fig. 11) and a gradually decreasing width (e.g., fig. 10 shows element 205 has a gradually decreasing width from the far right edge); and a third waveguide section 112 partially overlapping with the second waveguide section 205 at an overlap region (e.g., figs. 10-11), the third waveguide section 112 characterized by a gradually increasing width and a second thickness different from the first thickness (e.g., figs. 10-11).
Kim does not explicitly state the 1st WG section (e.g., the far right end of element 205) has a “constant” width.
However, it was well-known for the end of an edge coupler to have a constant width section before tapering down as evidenced by Lee (e.g., Lee fig. 1; see OF side of coupler has constant width before tapering down) and/or Park (e.g., Park fig. 12 shows a constant width WG from the edge of the coupler before the downward taper WG section). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the end of an edge coupler 1000’s 1st WG section 205 (e.g., Kim figs. 10-11) to have a constant width section added to the edge facing the OF 2000 in Kim figs. 10-11 before tapering down at least for the purpose of having stabilized mode coupling prior to tapering down for mode transition.
Thus claim 1 is rejected under Kim with OEB Lee and/or Park (may simply be referred to as “Kim-Lee-Park” or even more simply as “K-L-P”).
Regarding claim 4, K-L-P teaches the device of claim 1 (see above), wherein: a bottom surface of the second waveguide section 205 and a bottom surface of the third waveguide 112 (e.g., Kim figs. 10-11; both the 2nd WG section 205 and the 3rd WG section 112 have bottoms that touch a surface of the substrate 10 and thus are on the same plane as the surface of the substrate 10) section are on a same plane (e.g., Kim fig. 11); and the second waveguide section 205 and the third waveguide section 112 are merged in the overlap region (e.g., figs. 10-11).
Thus claim 4 is rejected under K-L-P.
Regarding claim 5, K-L-P teaches the device of claim 1 (see above), wherein: a top surface of the second waveguide section 205 (e.g., in Kim fig. 10 the portions of element 205, on both sides of the taper 112, interface with the surface of substrate 10 so at least portions of element 205 are on the plane of substrate 10; the plane of the substrate 10 is, therefore, shared with a surface of each of element 112 and element 205; so, when the interface of the surface of element 112 and the surface of element 10 is considered as the “top surface” {for example when Kim fig. 11 is turned upside down}, it is correctly stated that the top surface of the 2nd WG section 205 and a top surface of the 3rd WG section 112 are on the same plane) and a top surface of the third waveguide section 112 are on a same plane (e.g., Kim fig. 11 viewed upside down); and the second waveguide section 205 and the third waveguide section 112 are merged in the overlap region (e.g., Kim figs. 10-11).
Thus claim 5 is rejected under K-L-P.
Regarding claim 6, K-L-P teaches the device of claim 1 (see above), wherein a bottom surface of the second waveguide section 205 (e.g., in Kim fig. 11, a bottom surface of 2nd WG section 205 interfaces with a top surface of 3rd WG section 112) and a top surface of the third waveguide section are on a same plane (e.g., in Kim fig. 11, a bottom surface of 2nd WG section 205 interfaces with a top surface of 3rd WG section 112; where the 2nd WG section 205 interfaces with a top surface of 3rd WG section 112 is a plane, therefore, a bottom surface of 2nd WG section 205 and a top surface of 3rd WG section 112 are on a same plane).
Thus claim 6 is rejected under K-L-P.
Regarding claim 7, K-L-P teaches the device of claim 1 (see above), wherein a top surface of the second waveguide section 205 (e.g., viewing Kim fig. 11 upside down, a top surface of WG 205 shares a plane/interface with a bottom surface of 3rd WG section 112; it is noted in Kim fig. 11 viewed upside down, the top surface of WG 112 is shown directly interfacing on another/different plane shared with a surface of element 10) and a bottom surface of the third waveguide section 112 are on a same plane (e.g., viewing Kim fig. 11 upside down, a top surface of WG 205 shares a plane/interface with a bottom surface of 3rd WG section 112).
Thus claim 7 is rejected under K-L-P.
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
Prosecution Insights