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 .
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) 1-9, 12-15, 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida (US 20120230635).
Regarding claim 1, Yoshida discloses an optical coupler comprising: a substrate 1; a cladding 7 layer supported above the substrate (e.g., figs. 1, 5; the primary figure in this discussion is fig. 5; however, fig. 5 is in plan view and it would at least have been obvious to view substantially similar fig. 1 to understand it would have at least been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the cladding 7 is above the substrate 1 and that the waveguides {WGs} 2-6 are sandwiched between the cladding 7 and substrate 1; the primary difference of fig. 5 relative to fig. 1 is that the WGs 2-6 have extensions 2-3 through 6-3 that extend all the way to the edge of the substrate/cladding interface as shown in fig. 5), the cladding layer and the substrate defining a facet (e.g., figs. 1, 5; edge 8 in fig. 5 obviously defines a facet at least based on the obviousness discussion above); a first optical waveguide 2 arranged within the cladding layer 7; a second optical waveguide (e.g., at least one of WGs 3-6; fig. 5) arranged substantially parallel to the first optical waveguide 2 and spaced apart from the first optical waveguide (e.g., fig. 5) by a transverse distance at the facet (e.g., fig. 5), the second optical waveguide comprising a first tapered portion {TP} (e.g., fig. 5; 6-2 and 6-3 define a 1st TP of WG 6; 5-2 and 5-3 define a 1st TP of WG 5; 4-2 and 4-3 define a 1st TP of WG 4; 3-2 and 3-3 define a 1st TP of WG 3) and a second tapered portion (e.g., 6-1, 5-1, 4-1, 3-1 respectively define a 2nd TP for respective WGs 6, 5, 4, 3; fig. 5), wherein an optical signal transmitted along the first and second optical waveguides is transformed onto the first optical waveguide over the first tapered portion (e.g., ¶s 0034, 0049), and the optical signal is decoupled from the second optical waveguide over the second tapered portion (e.g., fig. 5; ¶s 0034, 0049).
The same reasoning as applied in the rejection of claim 1 applies mutatis mutandis to the subject-matter of corresponding method claim 15.
Regarding claim 2, Yoshida discloses wherein the first optical waveguide 2 widens from a first tip width at the facet 8 to a first terminating width at a first terminal end (e.g., fig. 5; the WG 2 widens; the claim 2 does not require a constant/continuous taper).
Regarding claim 3, Yoshida discloses wherein the first tapered portion (e.g., fig. 5; 6-2 and 6-3 define a 1st TP of WG 6; 5-2 and 5-3 define a 1st TP of WG 5; 4-2 and 4-3 define a 1st TP of WG 4; 3-2 and 3-3 define a 1st TP of WG 3; again no constant/continuous taper is required by this claim) widens from a second tip width to an intermediate width (e.g., fig. 5).; and the second tapered portion (e.g., 6-1, 5-1, 4-1, 3-1 respectively define a 2nd TP for respective WGs 6, 5, 4, 3; fig. 5) narrows from the intermediate width to a second terminating width at a second terminal end (e.g., fig. 5).
Regarding claim 4, Yoshida discloses wherein the first tip width is substantially equal to the second tip width (e.g., fig. 5).
Regarding claim 5, Yoshida discloses wherein each of the first optical waveguide and the second optical waveguide further comprises an extension portion, respectively (e.g., fig. 5; 2-3 through 6-3).
Regarding claim 6, Yoshida discloses wherein the extension portion of each of the first and second optical waveguide is of uniform width (e.g., extensions 2-3 through 6-3; fig. 5).
Regarding claim 7, Yoshida discloses wherein one or more of the transverse distance, the first tip width, and the second tip width are configured to mode match with an external light source optically connected to the optical coupler at the facet portion (e.g., fig. 5; ¶s 0034, 0049).
Regarding claim 8, Yoshida discloses wherein the first optical waveguide and the second optical waveguide are ribbed waveguides (e.g., figs. 1, 5).
Regarding claim 9, Yoshida discloses wherein the second tapered portion has a length of at least 4% of a total length of the second optical waveguide (e.g., fig. 5).
Regarding claims 12-14, 18-20 in ¶s 0044-0045, 0049 in combination with ¶ 0031, the features of claim 7 of mode matching of the external light source, namely a fiber as mentioned in ¶ 0031, with the first waveguide; and in ¶ 0049 a tip width of 150 nm , feature of claim 4. Yoshida further discloses in ¶ 0049, in combination with ¶ 0031, which states that the second waveguide maximum width is narrower than the maximum width of the first waveguide (e.g., moreover, optimizing gap distances, widths, taper angles is extremely well known for the purpose of maximizing coupling; MPEP §2144.07 Art Recognized Suitability for an Intended Purpose; fig. 5). Thus claims 12-14, 18, 19, 20 are at least rendered as obvious.
Claim(s) 10, 11, 16, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida (US 20120230635) as applied to claims 1, 3, 15 above, with further obviousness evidenced by {OEB} Painchaud et al. (US 20190384003; “Painchaud”) and/or Krueger et al. (US 20210373243; “Krueger”).
Regarding claims 10, 11, 16, 17, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the second optical waveguide to further comprise a radiation tip extending from the second tapered portion [e.g., 6-1, 5-1, 4-1, 3-1 respectively define a 2nd TP for respective WGs 6, 5, 4, 3; Yoshida fig. 5], the radiation tip configured to reduce optical reflections within the second optical waveguide (e.g., a radiation tip that extends from the second tapered portion is extremely well known at least as evidenced by the curved and tapering tips shown in Painchaud fig. 13). Furthermore, Krueger fig. 3B and ¶ 0041 discloses the features of claims 10, 11, 16, 17, namely WG terminations for reducing optical reflections. Hence, the subject matter of claims 10, 11, 16, 17 are rendered as obvious.
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