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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/26/24 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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, 3, 5-8, 12-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Block et al. (US 2005/0123244 A1).
Re. Claim 1, Block et al. discloses an optical coupler comprising: a buried layer 501; a support layer 110; a waveguide layer 130; and an upper cladding layer 120 (Fig. 5D; [0027]), wherein in a height direction the support layer 110 is located between the buried layer 501 and the waveguide layer 130 (Fig. 5D), and the waveguide layer 130 is located between the support layer 110 and the upper cladding layer 120 (Fig. 5D), and in a width direction the waveguide layer 130 and the support layer 110 are located inside the upper cladding layer 120 (Fig. 5D), and a material of the waveguide layer 130 is different from a material of the support layer 110 ([0017]-[0018]).
Re. Claim 3, Block et al. discloses the upper cladding layer 120 has a shape of a square or a circle in the width direction (Fig. 5D).
Re. Claim 5, Block et al. discloses the support layer 110 comprises a first end face (e.g., output side for emitting signal 102 in Fig. 1) and a second end face (e.g., input side for receiving signal 101 in Fig. 1) in a transmission direction ([0021]-[0022]), and an area of the first end face is greater than an area of the second end face (Fig. 1).
Re. Claim 6, Block et al. discloses a width of the support layer 110 (e.g., a width of mesa 112) gradually decreases in a direction from the first end face to the second end face (Fig. 1; [0020]).
Re. Claim 7, Block et al. discloses a width of the second end face is less than 120 nanometers (e.g., a width of mesa 112 is zero; Fig. 1; [0020]).
Re. Claim 8, Block et al. discloses the waveguide layer 130 is of a trapezoidal structure in the transmission direction (Fig. 2A; [0020]).
Re. Claim 12, Block et al. discloses a refractive index of a material of the upper cladding layer 120 is greater than a refractive index of the material of the support layer 110 ([0018]).
Re. Claim 13, Block et al. discloses the refractive index of the material of the support layer 110 is less than a refractive index of the material of the waveguide layer 130 ([0018]).
Re. Claim 14, Block et al. discloses the material of the support layer 110 is the same as a material of the buried layer 501 (e.g., “Alternatively, the substrate 510 may be directly patterned to form the mesa 112 to operate as the low-index cladding layer without using a separately formed cladding layer 110”; [0027]).
Re. Claim 15, Block et al. discloses the optical coupler further comprises a substrate 601, and the buried layer 501 is located between the substrate 601 and the support layer 110 in the height direction (Fig. 6; [0028]-[0029]).
Re. Claim 16, Block et al. discloses the optical coupler further comprises a body part (e.g., portion adjacent first end face), wherein the body part further comprises a body buried layer 501, a body waveguide layer 130, and a body upper cladding layer 120, the body waveguide layer 130 is located between the body buried layer 510 and the body upper cladding layer 120, and a thickness of the body waveguide layer 130 is the same as a thickness of the waveguide layer 130 (Figs. 1 and 5D).
Re. Claim 17, Block et al. discloses an optical chip 600 comprising: a first optical component 630/634; and an optical coupler 100 as discussed above, wherein the optical coupler 100 is configured to: receive a reverse optical signal 310; reduce a mode spot of the reverse optical signal to obtain a reduced reverse optical signal (Fig. 3; [0021]), and transmit the reduced reverse optical signal to the first optical component, and wherein the first optical component 630/634 is configured to: receive the reduced reverse optical signal; and process the reduced reverse optical signal (Fig. 6; [0021], and [0028]-[0029]).
Re. Claim 18, Block et al. discloses the first optical component 630/634 is further configured to: transmit a forward optical signal to the optical coupler, wherein the optical coupler is configured to: amplify a mode spot of the forward optical signal, and output the forward optical signal with an amplified mode spot (Fig. 6; [0022], [0029]).
Re. Claim 19, Block et al. discloses an optical communication device comprising: a processor 631/633; and an optical chip as discussed above, wherein the optical chip is configured to: obtain an input electrical signal based on the reverse optical signal, and wherein the processor is configured to: perform data processing on the input electrical signal (Fig. 6; [0029]).
Re. Claim 20, Block et al. discloses in the processor 631/633 is further configured to: generate an output electrical signal; and transmit the output electrical signal to the optical chip, wherein the optical chip is further configured to: obtain a forward optical signal based on the output electrical signal; and output the forward optical signal (Fig. 6; [0029]).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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) 2 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Block et al. (US 2005/0123244 A1).
Re. Claim 2, Block et al. discloses an optical coupler as discussed above, but fails to disclose the dimensions of the coupler, and accordingly fails to disclose a distance between a central position of the waveguide layer and a central position of the upper cladding layer is less than 50 nanometers in the width direction.
The claimed arrangement would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the purpose of facilitating a high degree of optical coupling between the upper cladding and the waveguide. In addition, the claimed arrangement would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing of the claimed invention, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.Re.
Claim 4, Block et al. discloses an optical coupler as discussed above including wherein the optical coupler is configured to connect to an optical fiber having a diameter between 8-9 microns ([0011]), but fails to disclose an arrangement wherein, a width a of the square is within an interval [b-0.5 micrometer,b+0.5 micrometer], or a diameter a of the circle is within an interval [b-0.5micrometer,b+0.5micrometer].
The claimed arrangement would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the purpose of closely matching the diameter of the upper cladding to that of the optical fiber to encourage a high degree of optical coupling therebetween. Moreover, the claimed arrangement would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing of the claimed invention, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Block et al. (US 2005/0123244 A1) and Kumar et al. (US 9,625,651 B2).
Re. Claim 9, Block et al. discloses the optical coupler as discussed above, but fails to disclose an arrangement wherein the waveguide layer comprises an upper waveguide layer and a lower waveguide layer, and a width of the lower waveguide layer is greater than a width of the upper waveguide layer in the width direction.
Kumar et al. discloses an optical coupler 104 with a region 204 comprising the waveguide layer comprises an upper waveguide layer 304 and a lower waveguide layer 308, and a width of the lower waveguide layer 308 is greater than a width of the upper waveguide layer 304 in the width direction (Fig. 3; col. 5 lines 16-46).
The claimed invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the purpose of more tightly controlling the mode suppression/expansion of an optical signal passing through the optical coupler. The claim would have been obvious because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 and 11 are 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.
Re. Claim 10, the prior art does not disclose or reasonably suggest an optical coupler as required by the claim, specifically wherein the upper waveguide layer comprises a first part and a second part, and in the transmission direction the first part is of a rectangular structure, a width of the first part is between 400 nanometers and 2000 nanometers, the second part is of a trapezoidal structure, and a minimum width of the trapezoidal structure is less than 120 nanometers.
Re. Claim 11, the prior art does not disclose or reasonably suggest an optical coupler as required by the claim, specifically wherein the lower waveguide layer comprises a third end face and a fourth end face in the transmission direction, the lower waveguide layer is of a trapezoidal structure, a width of the third end face is greater than a width of the fourth end face, and the width of the fourth end face is less than 120 nanometers.
The most applicable prior art, Block et al. (US 2005/0123244 A1) and Kumar et al. (US 9,625,651 B2), addressed above, fails to disclose or reasonably suggest the claimed invention, specifically those portions highlighted above in combination with the remaining limitations of the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See the attached PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to R. PEACE whose telephone number is (571)272-8580. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 pm.
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.
/RHONDA S PEACE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874 4/8/26
Prosecution Insights