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 § 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) 1-2, 5, 8, 10-11,14, 17, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 10,473,858,to Mahgerefteh et al.
Mahgerefteh discloses in the abstract and figure 5, a chip comprising:
a silicon substrate (506 and column 3, line 8);
a first waveguide comprising silicon and nitrogen (502);
a second waveguide comprising silicon (504), wherein a portion of the first waveguide overlaps a portion of the second waveguide (area within L1 in figure 5); and
an oxide layer coupled with a face of the silicon substrate, wherein a first portion of the oxide layer between the silicon substrate and the first waveguide has a thickness that is greater than a thickness of a second portion of the oxide layer that is between the second waveguide and the oxide layer (unlabeled area between 502 and 504 in figure 5 is described in the specification for figure 2 as having an oxide layer 206 between layers. The claim language describing the thicknesses defines the waveguides overlapping one another which is shown in figure 5).
As to claim 2, there is an oxide layer between a first and second waveguide portion (206; figure 2).
As to claim 5, figure 5 shows a taper area in a direction perpendicular to the face of the silicon substrate.
Claims 8 and 17 makes mention of the waveguides being adjacent without any specific locations. This limitation only requires the two waveguides to be in the same proximity as one another. The prior art waveguides certainly are adjacent to one another in figure 5.
Claim 10 recites similar structure to the above but removes the language of the waveguides being present. The above disclosed waveguide portions contain their respective silicon and silicon nitride layers.
Claims 11 and 14 relate to the similar claims 5 and 8 above.
Claim 19 is similar to the above but describes a portion of a silicon waveguide and silicon nitride waveguide within an oxide layer. This feature is shown both in figures 2 and 5 for the waveguide portions surrounded by oxide.
As to claim 20, the portion of the silicon waveguide is tapered (508).
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) 3-4, 7, 12-13, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mahgerefteh.
Mahgerefteh discloses the invention as claimed except for variations in thickness.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use the claimed thicknesses since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim(s) 6, 9, 15 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mahgerefteh as applied to claims above, and further in view of US 2022/0013985 to Koch et al.
Mahgerefteh discloses the invention as claimed except for the angled facet in a direction parallel to the propagation. Such angles are commonly used to couple light between two planes.
Koch discloses such a tapered portion (904) in figures 8-11 to properly redirect light.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to angle or taper a facet end of a waveguide as taught by Koch in Mahgerefteh to optimize the redirection of a light signal.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 12,265,259 (coupler with tapered end buried in oxide).
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 on 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