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 .
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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12 March, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 12 March, 2026 has been fully considered and entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-10, filed 12 March, 2026, with respect to claims 10-12 and 14-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The corresponding rejections of 05 February, 2026 have been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: “transverse electrode mode” should be “transverse electric mode”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 3, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Watts (US 2005/0254128; hereinafter Watts).
Regarding claim 1: Watts disclosesA structure comprising: a substrate (see paragraph 0025); and a polarization device (Fig. 4A-4C, polarization splitters 100, 102, and 104, respectively) on the substrate and including: a first waveguide (Fig. 4A-4C, horizontally oriented waveguides 112, 114, and 116, respectively) with first end sections and a first coupling section between the first end sections (end sections having from the ends having separation distance s.sub.2 and s.sub.1, respectively, to any particular point in the polarization splitter, leaving a section in between which is considered the first coupling section; in Fig. 4C, vertically oriented waveguide 110 is shown to have 3 distinct sections: a straight section, a tapered section, and a curved section; the straight section and curved sections are considered end sections, and the tapered section is considered a coupling section) wherein the first waveguide comprises a single first core (horizontally oriented waveguides comprise a single first core, see Figs. 4A-4C); and a second waveguide (Figs. 4A-4C, vertically oriented waveguides 106, 108, and 110) having second end sections and a second coupling section between the second end sections (these sections can be drawn parallel to the boundaries of the first end sections and first coupling section, as outlined above), wherein the second coupling section is positioned laterally adjacent to the first coupling section (by appropriate delineation of the boundaries of the first and second end sections, as outlined above, the second coupling section is positioned laterally adjacent to the first coupling section), and wherein the second waveguide comprises: a second core (Figs. 4A-4C, middle core layer in the vertically oriented waveguides; in Fig. 4B, this is labeled layer 120; see paragraph 0032, the core layers need not have the same refractive indices; further, in Fig. 4B, the core layers separate; based on these disclosed differences, they are considered distinct cores) positioned laterally adjacent to the first core ; and multiple additional second cores stacked vertically with each other (Figs. 4A-4C, top and bottom core layers, labeled 130 and 134 in Fig. 4B) and with the second core.
Regarding the limitation “wherein the multiple additional second cores facilitate mode matching of light signals between the first coupling section and the second coupling section”: when a structure recited in a reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. See MPEP 2112.01. Watts teaches a structure that is substantially identical to that of the claimed invention, therefore the claimed property of “wherein the multiple additional second cores facilitate mode matching of light signals between the first coupling section and the second coupling section” is presumed to be inherent. The burden is on the applicant to show that the prior art device does not inherently possess the claimed properties. See MPEP 2112.01.
The examiner notes that if the claimed structure does not inherently possess the claimed properties, then the claims would be incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections necessary to clearly and precisely define the invention, wherein the structure necessary to provide the claimed properties is essential.
Regarding claim 3: Watts disclosesThe structure of claim 1 (as applied above), wherein the polarization device is a polarization splitter (see paragraph 0038).
Regarding the limitation “wherein, due to the multiple additional second cores stacked vertically with the second core within the polarization splitter, when transverse electric mode light signals and transverse magnetic mode light signals are both received through an input/output port at one of the first end sections of the first waveguide, matched mode light signals pass from the first coupling section to the second coupling section and only one of the transverse electric mode light signals and the transverse magnetic mode light signals are output from an input/output port at another one of the first end sections of the first waveguide”: when a structure recited in a reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. See MPEP 2112.01. Watts teaches a structure that is substantially identical to that of the claimed invention, therefore the claimed property of “wherein, due to the multiple additional second cores stacked vertically with the second core within the polarization splitter, when transverse electric mode light signals and transverse magnetic mode light signals are both received through an input/output port at one of the first end sections of the first waveguide, matched mode light signals pass from the first coupling section to the second coupling section and only one of the transverse electric mode light signals and the transverse magnetic mode light signals are output from an input/output port at another one of the first end sections of the first waveguide” is presumed to be inherent. The burden is on the applicant to show that the prior art device does not inherently possess the claimed properties. See MPEP 2112.01.
The examiner notes that if the claimed structure does not inherently possess the claimed properties, then the claims would be incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections necessary to clearly and precisely define the invention, wherein the structure necessary to provide the claimed properties is essential.
Regarding claim 7: Watts disclosesThe structure of claim 1 (as applied above), wherein the polarization device is a polarization combiner (see paragraph 0027).
Regarding the limitation “wherein, due to the multiple additional second cores stacked vertically with the second core within the polarization combiner, when one of the transverse electric mode light signals and transverse magnetic mode light signals are received through an input/output port at one of the first end sections of the first waveguide and a different one of the transverse electric mode light signals and the transverse magnetic mode light signals are received through an input/output port at a second end section of the second waveguide, matched mode light signals pass from the second coupling section to the first coupling section and both the transverse electric mode light signals and the transverse magnetic mode light signals are output from an input/output port at another one of the first end sections of the waveguide”: when a structure recited in a reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. See MPEP 2112.01. Watts teaches a structure that is substantially identical to that of the claimed invention, therefore the claimed property of “wherein, due to the multiple additional second cores stacked vertically with the second core within the polarization combiner, when one of the transverse electric mode light signals and transverse magnetic mode light signals are received through an input/output port at one of the first end sections of the first waveguide and a different one of the transverse electric mode light signals and the transverse magnetic mode light signals are received through an input/output port at a second end section of the second waveguide, matched mode light signals pass from the second coupling section to the first coupling section and both the transverse electric mode light signals and the transverse magnetic mode light signals are output from an input/output port at another one of the first end sections of the waveguide” is presumed to be inherent. The burden is on the applicant to show that the prior art device does not inherently possess the claimed properties. See MPEP 2112.01.
The examiner notes that if the claimed structure does not inherently possess the claimed properties, then the claims would be incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections necessary to clearly and precisely define the invention, wherein the structure necessary to provide the claimed properties is essential.
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watts (US 2005/0254128; hereinafter Watts) and Lin et al. (US Patent No. 9,366,818; hereinafter Lin).
Watts discloses the structure of claim 1, as applied above. Watts fails to disclose that the first core and the second core are silicon nitride cores. Lin, also related to polarization splitters having multiple waveguide cores (see title and abstract), teaches that silicon nitride is a suitable material for waveguide cores of polarization splitters (see abstract). 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. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the Watts device by using silicon nitride for the material of the first core and the second core, based on its known suitability for its intended use.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-12 and 14-20 are allowed.
Claims 4-6 and 8-9 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 4: The closest found prior art, Watts, fails to teach or suggest: “wherein the multiple additional second cores are stacked below and center-aligned with the second core”, in combination with the other structural limitations positively recited in the claim. Therefore, claim 4 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claims 5, 6, and 9: Due at least to the allowable features of claim 4, claims 5-6 and 9 would also be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 8: The closest found prior art, Watts (Fig. 4C), fails to teach or suggest “wherein the multiple additional second cores are narrower in width than the second core”, in combination with the other structural limitations positively recited in the claim. Therefore, claim 8 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 10: The closest found prior art, Mahgarefteh et al. (US 2016/0131837; previously cited) and Watts, fail to teach or suggest: “wherein the multiple additional second cores include a semiconductor material core below the second core and a dielectric material core above the second core”, in combination with the other structural features positively recited in the claim. Therefore, claim 10 is allowed.
Regarding claims 11-12 and 14-16: Due at least to the allowable features of claim 10, claims 11-12 and 14-16 are also allowed.
Regarding claim 17: The closest found prior art, Watts, fails to teach or suggest “multiple additional second cores stacked vertically with each other and further stacked vertically above and center-aligned with the second core”, in combination with the other structural limitations positively recited in the claim. Therefore, claim 17 is allowed.
Regarding claims 18-20: Due at least to the allowable features of claim 17, claims 18-20 are also allowed.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kirsten D Endresen whose telephone number is (703)756-1533. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday.
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.
/KIRSTEN D. ENDRESEN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2874
/THOMAS A HOLLWEG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights