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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/2/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments center around the amended limitations regarding the “independently configurable” widths and thicknesses for the waveguides to “compensate for dimensional variations in one another” in performing one or more of mode matching.
First, it is unclear as currently recited in the claims how these dimensions are independently configurable. There is no structure claimed as to how they are configured (or reconfigured) due to the dimensional variations in one another.
Secondly, as implied from the Remarks, it appears this variability occurs during manufacturing of the waveguides. Independent claim 1 (and similar amendments to dependent claims) therefore appear to be intermediate steps of manufacturing that result in the finished apparatus claimed. As a result, these claims appear to still be anticipated by the prior art which has different widths and thicknesses for respective waveguides in separate layers.
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) 1-5, 7, and 9-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 10,197,731 to Teng et al.
Teng discloses in the abstract and figures 2B and 5, an optical coupler comprising:
A semiconductor substrate (“substrate”; figure 5);
a first cladding layer (“S0” or ”N2”; figure 5) supported over the substrate;
a second cladding layer (“N1L”; figure 5) supported over the substrate,
the substrate, the first cladding layer, and the second cladding layer defining a facet (the device is an edge coupler with a facet such as shown on the front side in figure 27);
a first optical waveguide (300nm thick unlabeled portion in layer N2; figure 5) arranged in the first cladding layer, the first optical waveguide having a first cross- sectional area at the facet defined by a first thickness in a vertical direction and a first width in a transverse direction orthogonal to the vertical direction;
a second optical waveguide (100nm thick unlabeled portion in layer N1L; figure 5) arranged in the first cladding layer, the second optical waveguide at a first transverse distance from the first optical waveguide, the second optical waveguide having a second cross- sectional area defined by a second thickness and a second width at the facet; and
a third optical waveguide (100nm thick unlabeled portion in layer N1M; figure 5) arranged in the second cladding layer, the third optical waveguide at a first vertical distance from the first and second optical waveguides, the third optical waveguide having a third cross- sectional area defined by a third thickness and a third width at the facet; and
wherein the first transverse distance and the first vertical distance are configured to perform one or more of mode matching with an external light source, maintaining optical coupling between the first, second, and third optical waveguides, and ensuring optical efficiency of the optical coupler (column 8, lines 16-28).
As noted in the Response to Arguments above, it appears the structure enabling the function of the independently configurable dimensions are not present. As such, Examiner must interpret this limitation as an intermediate step in manufacturing that results in the final structure anticipated by the prior art.
As to claim 2, the thickness and widths are identical in some embodiments such as those shown in figure 2A.
As to claims 3-4, the third thickness and width has the claimed dimensions (figure 5).
As to claim 5, the cross-sectional areas are configured for mode matching (column 8, lines 16-28).
As to claim 7, the cross-sectional areas are configured to optimize coupling efficiency (prior art Specification description for figures 2A and 2B).
As to claim 9, the terminal width of the third waveguide portion is matched to a fiber (2728) butt-coupled to the facet (2712).
As to claim 10, a PIC is located in the corresponding cladding layers (see Specification description “paragraph K”).
As to claim 11, if there is no difference in thicknesses, this claim limitation would be met. Certainly, the widths and thicknesses disclosed are below a difference of 50nm for either of the width or thicknesses or a combined combination thereof.
As to claims 12-13, the cladding layers are supported as claimed (figure 5).
As to claim 14, the layer thicknesses are identical (figure 5).
As to claims 15-16, a fourth waveguide is shown with associated withs and thicknesses claimed (layers N1L – N1U have 4 waveguides) and are configured to mode match (column 8, lines 16-28).
Claims 17-20 relate to additional layers above those disclosed above and with embedded waveguides therein. As shown in figure 5, additional layers, each with corresponding waveguides and thicknesses, are stacked atop one another. Similar to the disclosure above in column 8, lines 16-28, these waveguides are configured to optimize mode matching.
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) 6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teng.
Teng discloses the invention as claimed including a 300nm thickness in layer N2 and a 300nm width in layers N1L, N1M and N1U. These values are selected to optimize coupling and mode matching characteristics. It is noted that Applicant claims values that also equal one another or are different in terms of widths and thicknesses leading one to assume a lack in criticality for these result effective variables. Respective claims do not disclose these exact values:
Claim 6: first thickness <300nm (prior art discloses exactly 300nm).
Claim 8: third thickness greater than 300nm and third width less than third thickness (prior art is exactly 300nm).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to first recognize that the disclosed prior art value of 300nm is “close enough” to meet the inequality that the values be “less than 300nm”. Secondly, selecting a thickness or width of a result effective variable would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the mode and coupling characteristics.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Eric K Wong whose telephone number is (571)272-2363. The examiner can normally be reached M-Tu, Th-F 8A-6P.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Thomas Hollweg can be reached at 571-270-1739. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
ERIC K. WONG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2874
/Eric Wong/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights