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 with traverse of Group I and further Group Ic (i.e., claims 1, 5, 7-8) in the reply (to the 10/7/25 restriction requirement {RR}) filed on 12/8/25 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the examiner was incorrect regarding “particulars” (re: combination/subcombination portion of the 10/7/25 RR) and the election of species is not proper. This is not found persuasive because, first of all, there is no “species” mentioned in the entire 10/7/25 RR, so it is improper to be referring to the related inventions as “species”. Moreover, the particulars of the combination(s)/subcombination(s) are properly pointed out in the 10/7/25 RR page 2 final five lines through the first three lines on page 3. Additional particulars are further pointed out in the 10/7/25 RR page 3 lines 10-14. Applicant never addressed in what way the statements, made in the 10/7/25 RR page 2 final five lines through the first three lines and on page 3 lines 10-14, are incorrect. The statements made, in the 10/7/25 RR, page 2 final five lines through the first three lines and on page 3 lines 10-14 are indeed correct since they follow exactly what is required in the MPEP.
Moreover, regarding the related inventions portion(s) of the 10/7/25 RR, for example the inventions Ia-i, one criteria is: the inventions as claimed can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect. How the inventions as claimed can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect is pointed out in items a. - i. on pages 5-6 of the 10/7/25 RR. Moreover, items a. - i. on pages 5-6 of the 10/7/25 RR also point out how the inventions as claimed are mutually exclusive by pointing out a respective element/limitation in each of respective groups/inventions Ia-i that is not present in the other respective groups. Since how the inventions as claimed can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect was properly pointed out, it is not necessary to address “not capable of use together” since this is stated in the alternative.
Therefore, at least for the above reasons, Applicant’s arguments have been refuted and the requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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, 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Barwicz et al. (US 20170052315; “Barwicz”).
Regarding claim 1, Barwicz teaches an adiabatic splitter (e.g., Title; ¶s 0032, 0055; figs. 2, 3), comprising: a first waveguide 206/204; and a second waveguide 212/210 (e.g., figs. 2, 3) spaced from the first waveguide 206/204 by a gap (e.g., figs. 2, 3), the second waveguide 212/210 has a first layer (e.g., the layer of 212 and 206) and a second layer (e.g., the layer of 210 and 204), wherein, in a first stage (e.g., in fig. 3 from gap 5 to gap 3) of the adiabatic splitter (e.g., figs. 2, 3), the first 206/204 and second 212/210 waveguides converge toward one another (e.g., in fig. 3 from gap 5 to gap 3) and the first and second layers are in a stacked arrangement (e.g., fig. 2), and wherein, in a second stage of the adiabatic splitter, the second layer 210 tapers (e.g., element 210 of the 2nd layer from around gap 3 to gap 4 and further to gap 2 wherein element 210 is shown as adiabatically tapering downward in width in fig. 3) and translates so that the first (e.g., element 212 of the 1st layer) and second layers (e.g., element 210 of the 2nd layer) are, at least at an output of the adiabatic splitter, no longer in the stacked arrangement (e.g., in fig. 3, at both ends of the adiabatic splitter element 212 is no longer stacked with element 210; as seen at gap 1 and gap 2, element 210 no longer overlaps element 212 which means element 210 and element 212 are no longer stacked where they do not overlap; fig. 3; ¶ 0031).
Thus claim 1 is met.
Regarding claim 7, Barwicz teaches the adiabatic splitter of claim 1 (see above), wherein the second layer translates away from a center of the adiabatic splitter along the second stage (e.g., element 210 of the 2nd layer from around gap 3 to gap 4 and further to gap 2, defining the 2nd stage, translates away from a center of the adiabatic splitter along the 2nd stage; fig. 3).
Thus claim 7 is met.
Regarding claim 8, Barwicz teaches the adiabatic splitter of claim 7 (see above), wherein, at the output of the adiabatic splitter, the second layer is spaced a lateral distance that is equal to or greater than a width of the first layer (e.g., Table 1 suggests an exemplary size of W1 as 360 nm and an exemplary size of gap 2 as 700 nm; therefor gap 2 is greater than W1).
Thus claim 8 is met.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
In Barwicz, the 2nd layer translates away from the center of the adiabatic splitter, which is the opposite direction to what is in claim 5
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