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 .
Preliminary Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of the preliminary amendment filed 12/19/2023.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by USPGPub 2016/0025922 to Kono et al. (from hereinafter “Kono”).
Regarding claim 1, Kono teaches an optical waveguide device (semiconductor optical device) comprising: an optical waveguide (optical waveguide 10) formed on a substrate; and a spot size converter (see paragraph 27) that changes a mode field diameter of a light wave propagating through the optical waveguide in at least one end of the optical waveguide, wherein an insulating layer (insulator layer 18) that covers at least an upper surface (see especially Figure 1D) of the optical waveguide is provided, and the insulating layer is continuously disposed to the spot size converter along the optical waveguide (see Figures 1A-1F, paragraphs 25-42).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kono in view of Shimizu (USPGPub 2015-0277043).
Regarding claim 2, although Kono teaches the existence of modulation efficiency within the optical waveguide device, Kono fails to specifically teach that the optical waveguide includes a modulation portion to which an electric filed is applied to modulate a phase of the light wave propagating through the optical waveguide, and that the insulating layer convers the modulation portion and is continuously disposed from the modulation portion to the spot size converter along the optical waveguide.
Shimizu teaches an optical waveguide that includes a modulation portion (modulator section 84) to which an electric field is applied to modulate a phase of the light wave propagating through the optical waveguide, and that the insulating layer (shared layer 5, upper clad layer 6, and electrode passivation layer 7 function as an upper clad layer as a whole) covers the modulation portion and is continuously disposed from the modulation portion to the spot size converter along the optical waveguide (see Figure 2A, paragraphs 23-34, especially paragraphs 24, 28 and 34).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the modulation unit of Shimizu within the optical waveguide of Kono so that there is a unitary arrangement which is favorable for ensuring that the optical waveguide operates efficiently and effectively within different modes and phases of light.
Regarding claim 3, Kono fails to specifically teach wherein the insulating layer functions as a clad portion of the optical waveguide in the modulation portion and functions as a core portion of the optical waveguide in the spot size converter (see paragraph 28).
Shimizu teaches wherein the insulating layer functions as a clad portion of the optical waveguide in the modulation portion and functions as a core portion of the optical waveguide in the spot size converter (see paragraph 28).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the core and clad layers as such for optimal operation of the optical waveguide device and hence better light propagation.
Regarding claim 4, Kono fails to specifically teach wherein an upper surface of the insulating layer covering the modulation portion and an upper surface of the insulating layer of the spot size converter form the same plane.
Shimizu teaches wherein an upper surface of the insulating layer covering the modulation portion and an upper surface of the insulating layer of the spot size converter form the same plane (see Figure 2A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the upper surfaces of the insulating layers covering the modulation portion and the spot size converter form the same plane so that light can propagate through the waveguide correctly and so that the layers are seamlessly connected for optimum performance.
Claim(s) 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kono in view of Shimizu as applied to claims 1-4 above, and further in view of Kugimoto et al. (USPGPub 2024/0069281, from hereinafter “Kugimoto”).
Regarding claim 5, Kono in view of Shimizu fails to specifically teach wherein the optical waveguide is a rib type optical waveguide.
Kugimoto teaches wherein the optical waveguide is a rib type optical waveguide (rib-type optical waveguide 10) (see Figures 1 and 2, paragraph 34).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the rib type optical waveguide in the combination of Kono and Shimizu because rib type optical waveguides allow for high-speed data transmission and low signal loss.
Regarding claims 6-7, Kono in view of Shimizu fails to specifically teach a case accommodating the optical waveguide device; and an optical fiber through which a light wave is input into the optical waveguide or output from the optical waveguide, and further, an electronic circuit that amplifies a modulation signal to be input into the modulation electrode of the optical waveguide device (as previously taught by Kono in view of Shimizu) is provided inside the case.
Kugimoto teaches a case (Fig 9, case SC) accommodating the optical waveguide device; and an optical fiber (Fig 9, optical fiber F) through which a light wave is input into the optical waveguide or output from the optical waveguide, and an electronic circuit (Fig 9 digital signal processor DSP) that amplifies a modulation signal to be input into the modulation electrode (modulation electrode paragraph 53) of the optical waveguide device is provided inside the case (driver circuit DRV or digital signal processor DRP is disposed in the case) (see Fig 9, Paragraphs 53-54).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a case and be able to attach an optical fiber along with an electronic circuit within the case because it is favorable to have a unitary structure and an ease of connecting an optical fiber, and regarding the circuit, in order for propagation loss of the modulation signal from the driver circuit to be reduced.
Regarding claim 8, Kono in view of Shimizu fails to specifically teach an electronic circuit that outputs a modulation signal causing the optical modulation device to perform a modulation operation.
Kugimoto teaches an electronic circuit that outputs a modulation signal causing the optical modulation device to perform a modulation operation (optical transmission apparatus OTA can be connected to optical modulation device MD and an electronic circuit (DSP) that outputs a modulation signal for causing the optical modulation device MD to perform a modulation operation (see Fig 9, Paragraph 54).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to be able to perform a modulation operation so that there can be some control of the unit from outside and for ease of access.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LISA M CAPUTO whose telephone number is (571)272-2388. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5 EST.
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, Uyen-Chau Le can be reached at 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 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.
/LISA M CAPUTO/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874