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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s Amendment filed on February 12, 2026 has been fully considered and entered.
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 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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4, 6-10, 12 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aboketaf et al. (US 2022/0115546 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 12 and 20, Aboketaf discloses a method of forming a structure for a photonics chip and a structure for a photonics chip (10 in Figs. 8-9), the structure comprising: a substrate (16); a photodetector (20) on the substrate, the photodetector including a light-absorbing layer (34), and the light-absorbing layer including a first sidewall (surface facing waveguide 18) and a first notch (31) in the first sidewall; and a first waveguide core (18) including a section adjacent to the first notch in the first sidewall of the light-absorbing layer.
Still regarding claims 1, 12 and 20, Aboketaf teaches the claimed invention except for a second notch and a second waveguide. However, as Aboketaf already discloses a first notch aligned to a first waveguide, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to form a second notch in a second sidewall spaced along the longitudinal axis from the first notch, the second notch aligned to a second waveguide core, for the purpose of directing another signal to the photodetector, increasing the density of the device. Further, such a modification of forming a second notch and a second waveguide would be mere duplication of parts, which the courts have held has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claim 2, Aboketaf discloses the section of the first waveguide core is tapered with a width dimension that increases with decreasing distance from the first sidewall of the light-absorbing layer in Fig. 8.
Regarding claim 3, Aboketaf discloses the light-absorbing layer includes a longitudinal axis, and the first notch is centered along the first sidewall relative to the longitudinal axis in Fig. 8.
Regarding claim 4, Aboketaf discloses the light-absorbing layer includes a longitudinal axis, and the section of the first waveguide core includes a longitudinal axis that is aligned with the longitudinal axis of the light-absorbing layer in Fig. 8.
Regarding claim 6, Aboketaf discloses the light-absorbing layer includes a longitudinal axis, a third sidewall (38), and a fourth sidewall (40), and the first notch is positioned between the third sidewall and the fourth sidewall in Fig. 8.
Regarding claim 7, Aboketaf discloses the third sidewall and the fourth sidewall are angled at respective acute angles relative to the longitudinal axis in Fig. 8.
Regarding claims 8-10 and 15, Aboketaf discloses the notch being a concavity in Fig. 8. Aboketaf teaches the claimed invention except for specifically stating the shape of the sidewalls. However, various sidewall shapes are ubiquitous in the art of optical devices and as such, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have found it obvious to have the second sidewall and the third sidewall be outwardly curved, inwardly curved, or meet at a cusp for the purpose of adjusting the level of back reflections.
Regarding claim 14, Aboketaf discloses a pad (20 in Figs. 7-8) connected to the section of the first waveguide core; a first doped region (48) in the pad, the first doped region having a first conductivity type; and a second doped region in the pad, the second doped region (50) having a second conductivity type opposite to the first conductivity type (paragraphs 0039-0041), wherein the light-absorbing layer is disposed on a portion of the pad between the first doped region and the second doped region (Fig. 7), and the portion of the pad comprises intrinsic semiconductor material (paragraph 0036).
Regarding claim 16, Aboketaf discloses the first notch penetrates through a full thickness of the light-absorbing layer in Fig. 9.
Regarding claim 17, Aboketaf discloses the first notch opens toward the section of the first waveguide core in Fig. 8.
Regarding claims 18 and 19, Aboketaf discloses the light-absorbing layer includes a third sidewall (42) and a fourth sidewall (44), the first sidewall includes a first prong between the first notch and the third sidewall, and the first sidewall includes a second prong between the first notch and the fourth sidewall in Fig. 8.
Claims 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aboketaf et al. (US 2022/0115546 A1) in view of Vercruysse et al. (US 2022/0328405).
Regarding claims 5 and 13, Aboketaf teaches the claimed invention except for first waveguide core includes a longitudinal axis that is aligned at an acute angle relative to the longitudinal axis of the light-absorbing layer. Vercruysse discloses a photodetector (200 in Fig. 2) having a light-absorbing layer (205; paragraphs 0016, 0035) which includes a longitudinal axis (206), and a waveguide core (207) includes a longitudinal axis (208) that is aligned at an acute angle relative to the longitudinal axis of the light-absorbing layer. Since both inventions relate to optical devices, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to align the waveguide core at an acute angle relative to the light-absorbing layer as disclosed by Vercruysse in the device of Aboketaf for the purpose of reducing back reflections.
Claims 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aboketaf et al. (US 2022/0115546 A1) in view of Chowdhury et al. (US 2022/0344523 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Aboketaf teaches the claimed invention except for the first notch laterally offset. Chowdhury discloses a photodetector (20 in Fig. 5) having a light-absorbing layer (34) which includes a longitudinal axis (36), and a first notch (notch at end surface 38) laterally offset relative to the longitudinal axis of the light-absorbing layer such that the first notch is asymmetrically disposed in the light-absorbing layer. Since both inventions relate to optical devices, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to have the first notch laterally offset relative to the light-absorbing layer as disclosed by Chowdhury in the device of Aboketaf for the purpose of inputting light from various directions, increasing the versatility of the device.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, flied December 15, 2025, with respect to claims have been considered but are not persuasive.
On pages 6-8, Applicant argues that Aboketaf does not disclose the limitations from cancelled claim 11, including a second notch and a second waveguide. Specifically, Applicant asserts that the obviousness rejection made on September 30, 2025 used “mere conclusory statements” and “fails to provide articulated reasoning that is supported by rational underpinning.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s assertion. Ample articulated reasoning was provided such as that because Aboketaf already discloses a first notch aligned to a first waveguide, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to form a second notch aligned to a second waveguide for the purpose of directing another signal to the photodetector, increasing the density of the device. It was further indicated that such a modification would be mere duplication of parts, which the courts have held has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. Thus, there was a clear articulation of the reason(s) why the claimed invention would have been obvious, with rational underpinning provided.
Applicant has not substantively addressed any of said articulated reasoning, much less rebutted it. Applicant instead relies on characterizing the articulated reasoning as “a mere conclusion” without providing any evidence.
Applicant also asserts that the rationale can only be used if “the facts in the prior legal decision (In re Harza) are sufficiently similar to those in the application.” In re Harza is directed to a claim requiring a plurality of ribs, while the reference disclosed a single rib. Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. The ruling applies here since Aboketaf discloses a first notch aligned to a first waveguide. The second notch and the second waveguide operates in the exact same manner and achieves the exact same result as the first notch and first waveguide. Thus, there is no new and unexpected result.
Finally, US 2022/0344523 A1 to Chowdhury (provided in Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement on November 3, 2023 and thus already on the record) discloses a single waveguide (18 in Fig. 10) attached to a side of a light-absorbing layer (34) and another embodiment with a second waveguide (51 in Figs. 12-13) attached to a second side of the light-absorbing layer. Thus, the addition of a second waveguide on a second side is indeed obvious.
For all of the reasons stated above, Aboketaf presents a prima facie rejection of the claims.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRIS H CHU whose telephone number is (571)272-8655. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9AM-5PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Uyen-Chau Le can be reached on 571-272-239797. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Any inquiry of a general or clerical nature should be directed to the Technology Center 2800 receptionist at telephone number (571) 272-1562.
Chris H. Chu
/CHRIS H CHU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874 May 7, 2026
Prosecution Insights