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 .
Drawings
The drawings, specifically figures 1-4, are objected to because not every line, number and letter is durable, clean, sufficiently dark and dense and uniformly thick and well defined. The weight of all lines and letters is not durable enough to permit adequate reproduction, see 37 CFR 1.84(l). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as amended. If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either Replacement Sheet or New Sheet pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 2 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 7: the phrase “the same plane” lacks antecedent basis and is instead interpreted as “a same plane.”
Claim 1, line 9: the phrase “the other end face” lacks antecedent basis, and is confusing because there is no other end face to be the “other” to. For purposes of this office action the examiner interprets the phrase to instead recite “an other end face.”
Claim 2, lines 2-3: the phrase “a coupling distance” is not the first recitation of the coupling distance and is instead interpreted as reciting “the coupling distance.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zandi (U.S. Patent 12,416,760, hereinafter referred to as “Zandi”). Zandi anticipates claims:
1. A sensitivity-enhanced broadband acoustic sensor (see figure 7) based on a grooved suspended waveguide ring resonator, comprising
a lower cladding layer (2) (bottom oxide layer 220 is interpreted as the lower cladding layer), and
an upper cladding layer (1) (top oxide layer 228 is interpreted as the upper cladding layer) located on the lower cladding layer (2) and integrated with the lower cladding layer (2) (see figure 7),
wherein a single straight waveguide core layer (3) (bus waveguide 230 is interpreted as the single straight waveguide core layer) and a ring waveguide core layer (4) (ring resonator 240 is interpreted as the ring waveguide core layer) are arranged between the upper cladding layer (1) and the lower cladding layer (2) (see figure 7), the single straight waveguide core layer (3) and the ring waveguide core layer (4) are located on the same plane (see figure 7), and a coupling distance is arranged between the single straight waveguide core layer (3) and the ring waveguide core layer (4) (see figure 7); and
an other end face of the lower cladding layer (2) opposite to the ring waveguide core layer (4) is arranged with a suspended waveguide air groove (5) (cavities 260 are interpreted as the suspended waveguide air groove – every element in the entire device is interpreted as being “arranged with” every other component over the device), and the suspended waveguide air groove (5) is located directly below the ring waveguide core layer (4) (see figure 7); and
light is input from one end of the single straight waveguide core layer (3); and
when the light passes through a coupling region between the single straight waveguide core layer (3) and the ring waveguide core layer (4), a part of the light is coupled into a ring resonator formed by the ring waveguide core layer (4), and is transmitted around the ring resonator (see column 7, lines 28-41).
3. The sensitivity-enhanced broadband acoustic sensor based on a grooved suspended waveguide ring resonator according to claim 1, wherein an acoustic sensitive air groove (6) (see figure 5, the acoustic sensitive air groove is formed by the top oxide cladding layer 228 moving down into the opening – figure 5 shows the grooves on the top of the top oxide cladding layer, before they are polished away, see column 7, lines 15-22 – in figure 7 they’ve been polished away, but at the moment in time where the grooves exist, this limitation is anticipated) is arranged on the upper cladding layer (1) and is above the ring waveguide core layer (4) (see figure 7).
5. The sensitivity-enhanced broadband acoustic sensor based on a grooved suspended waveguide ring resonator according to claim 1, wherein the single straight waveguide core layer (3) and the ring waveguide core layer (4) have a higher refractive index than the upper cladding layer (1) and the lower cladding layer (2) (optical waveguides function by the cladding and air around the waveguide cores being a lower refractive index than the core layers, as such this limitation is met).
6. The sensitivity-enhanced broadband acoustic sensor based on a grooved suspended waveguide ring resonator according to claim 1, wherein two ends of the single straight waveguide core layer (3) are aligned with end faces of the lower cladding layer (2) (lines could be drawn from the two ends of the core layer and the end faces of the lower cladding layer, making them aligned and meeting the limitation of the claim).
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.
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, 4 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zandi, as previously applied to claim 1 above.
With respect to claims 2 and 7, Zandi discloses the limitations of claim 1 as previously stated. Zandi is silent to a coupling distance arranged between the single straight waveguide core layer (3) and the ring waveguide core layer (4) is between 5.1 um and 6.0 um; and wherein a quality factor of the ring resonator formed by the ring waveguide core layer (4) is not less than 10^6. However, motivated with a goal to yield a device that has the most desirable optical coupling between the waveguides based on the coupling distance, and by having the Q factor best for the device, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Zandi device such that a coupling distance arranged between the single straight waveguide core layer (3) and the ring waveguide core layer (4) is between 5.1 um and 6.0 um; and wherein a quality factor of the ring resonator formed by the ring waveguide core layer (4) is not less than 10^6, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
With respect to claim 4, Zandi discloses the limitations of claim 1 as previously stated. Zandi further discloses the upper cladding layer (1) and the lower cladding layer (2) are made of silicon dioxide (see column 2, lines 8-33). Zandi is silent to the single straight waveguide core layer (3) and the ring waveguide core layer (4) are made of germanium-doped silicon dioxide. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the single straight waveguide core layer (3) and the ring waveguide core layer (4) are made of germanium-doped silicon dioxide, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Each of the references listed below are related to optical waveguides with air, gaps, or cavities below the waveguides and are relevant to the instant application.
Mattsson (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2004/0114899);
Chiu et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2023/0341638;
Hatsuda et al. (U.S. Patent 7,333,703);
Lin et al. (U.S. Patent 9,915,785);
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN M BEDTELYON whose telephone number is (571)270-1290. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00am - 4:30pm.
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.
/John Bedtelyon/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights