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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed on May 06, 2026 amending claims 11-15 and 17-19 have been acknowledged.
Currently, claims 11-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on May 06, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
It should be noted that the applicant pointed out in the response that due to the poor quality of the machine translation of WO2021044517A1, the applicant is referring to US 2022/0334309 A1 as English equivalent to WO2021044517A1 (Kurata). The following response to arguments thus considers the US 2022/0334309 and its correspondence Figures/paragraphs.
Further, the claim does not require any particular manufacturing mechanism beyond an inclined light incident/exit surface. Applicant argues that Kurata’s embodiment 2 does not disclose the claimed feature because, according to Applicant, Kurata “forms an angle” in the optical waveguide itself rather than in the light incident/light exit surface, and that the end surfaces of the optical waveguide appear coincident with or parallel to the end surface of the substrate.
The argument is not persuasive.
Kurata expressly teaches an angled coupling end of optical waveguide relative to the substrate end surface.
Kurata’s embodiment 2 states that: the angle Θ formed by the optical waveguide 2’ and the end surface of the substrate 1 is set at an inclination angle of eight degrees (with reference to ninety degrees)” (See, e.g., paragraphs [0062], [0069], [0079].)
The disclosure is not merely about the direction of propagation of the waveguide in the abstract. The reference describes a physical coupling end configuration in which the optical waveguide is formed such that its output/input end is inclined relative to the substrate end surface to reduce reflected return light.
In other words, Kurata teaches an optical device in which the optical waveguide’s coupling interface in intentionally formed at a non-perpendicular angle with respect to the substrate end face. That is exactly the type of geometry recited in claim 11.
Further, the claim does not require any particular manufacturing mechanism beyond an inclined light incident/exit surface.
Claim 11 recites, “ at least a central portion of the light incident surface and/or the light exit surface … is inclined at a preset angle with respect to the plane of the end surface.”.
The claim is satisfied by an optical waveguide whose coupling surface is inclined relative to the substrate end surface. It does not require that the entire waveguide be angled in a particular way or that the end surface be physically separated from the substrate end surface by some particular distance, or the waveguide be fabricated by any specific process.
13. Kurata’s embodiment 2 clearly teaches an angled optical coupling arrangement for the purpose of reducing reflected return light which is the same functional and structural concept.
14. Kurata’s embodiment 2 clearly teaches an angled optical coupling arrangement for the purpose of reducing reflected return light, which is the same functional and structural concept.
15. Applicant’s distinction between “waveguide angle” and “surface angle” is overly narrow.
16. Applicant contends that Kurata’s disclosure is merely about the waveguide as a whole, not the light incident / exit surface. However, this reads Kurata too narrowly.
17. In a waveguide butt-coupling arrangement, the angle of the waveguide relative to the substrate end surface necessarily affects the orientation of the optical coupling face at the chip end. Kurata’s disclosure of an inclined optical waveguide at the chip end reasonably teaches an inclined light incident / exit surface relative to the substrate end plane.
18. Thus, even if Kurata describes the feature as the optical waveguide being inclined, the skilled artisan would understand that the coupling end surface of the waveguide is correspondingly inclined with respect to the substrate end face.
19. At a minimum, Kurata renders the claimed configuration obvious.
20. Even assuming arguendo that embodiment 2 does not expressly label the surface as the “light incident surface” or “light exit surface”, Kurata still provides a clear motivation to modify the coupling end of the optical waveguide so that it is inclined relative to the substrate end surface to reduce reflected return light; to improve optical coupling characteristics; and to better align with low-reflection butt coupling practice.
21. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to provide the coupling end surface of the waveguide at the preset angle disclosed by Kurata.
22. For the above reasons, Applicant has not shown reversable error in the rejection. Kurata’s embodiment 2 teaches or at least renders obvious an optical device having an optical waveguide with a light incident surface and/or light exit surface inclined at a preset angle with respect to the plane of the substrate end surface.
Further, in response to applicant’s argument regarding dependent claims 12-20, applicant has not presented any substantive argument addressing the specific references and rationales applied to those claims.
Therefore, the rejections of claims 12–20 are maintained for at least the same reasons as claim 11 and for any additional reasons set forth in the Office Action.
23. Therefore, all the rejections are thus proper and maintained.
Examiner’s Note
24. The Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record within the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages, paragraph and figures may apply. Applicant, in preparing the response, should consider fully the entire reference as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
25. 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.
26. 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.
27. Claims 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2021044517A1 (hereinafter 517’).
28. As to claim 11, 517’ discloses and shows in the Figs,. 2-4, an optical device comprising: a substrate (1) having a pair of main surfaces opposite each other in a first direction and an end surface adjacent to the main surfaces (Embodiment 1 descriptions; e.g., discussion of “end surface of the substrate 1 and “chip end”) and an optical waveguide (2) on the substrate (1) and having a light incident surface or a light exit surface in adjacent to a plane of the end surface (output region E2 description; waveguide cores terminating at the ends face for butt coupling to optical element PD6 (embodiment 1)).
29. 517’ doesn’t explicitly disclose in embodiment 1, wherein, at least a central portion of the light incident surface and/or the light exit surface is inclined a preset angle with respect to the end surface.
30. However, 517’ discloses and shows in ( Figs. 7-8; embodiment 2 (PLC100B)) setting the angle Θ formed by the optical waveguide and the end face of the substrate to 8 degrees or more to reduce reflected return light (see text describing angle Θ = 8° and related figures 7–8). This is a direct disclosure of an inclined waveguide end/coupling surface “having a preset angle” relative to the substrate end face.).
31. Therefore, 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 central portion of the light incident surface and/or light exit surface of the optical waveguide comprises an inclined surface having a preset angle with respect to the end surface as suggested by embodiment 2 for the advantage of reduced reflected return light.
32. As to claim 12, 517’ discloses waveguide end-face configurations and also describes orientations of tapered and linear recesses in both the in-plane and thickness directions. 517’ disclosure of angles waveguides and variations in the groove and taper geometry teaches waveguides end/butt-coupling surfaces in differing orientations; many embodiments show planar inclined end surfaces that are not tilted about the thickness axis (i.e., planar faces inclined in-plane relative to the end face).
33. Further, as to claim 13, 517’ explicitly discloses the waveguides core and its end region being tilted by Θ (8°) relative to the substrate end face and describes changes in waveguide height and tilts. Embodiments show inclinations of waveguide structures in the plane. Therefore, it appears that the disclosure of 517’ can be read to include inclination with respect to the thickness axis.
34. In arguendo, 517’ doesn’t explicitly discloses that the optical device according to claim 11, wherein, the central portion is inclined/not inclined with respect to the first direction.
35. However, availability of the information described in 517’ along with common general knowledge of ordinary skill in the art having the central surface inclined/not inclined with the first direction is considered routine and obvious matter of design choice. See MPEP 2144.04.
36. Therefore, 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 central portion either inclined or not inclined with the first direction to achieve predictable result. (MPEP 2143, KSR v. Teleflex).
37. As to claim 14, 517’ discloses the optical device according to claim 11, wherein, the central portion is a planar surface or a curved surface (tilted planar end face; Embodiment 2);
38. As to claim 15, 517’ discloses the optical device according to claim 11, wherein, at least a portion of an end portion of the substrate surrounding the optical waveguide and an end portion of the optical waveguide jointly for the central portion (517’ discloses groove structures and end-region geometries where grooves, substrate end portions, and waveguides end portions jointly form the end region (see Figs. 4 and 8 and the description of the grooves 4/4’ and linear/tapered recesses, and descriptions of “end portion of the linear recess…noted space having no wall” and joint geometry)
39. As to claim 16, 517’ discloses the optical device according to claim 11, wherein, an end portion of the optical waveguide is closer to an inner side than the end portion of the substrate in a view from the first direction ( 517’ explicitly discloses groove portions formed up to a portion offset from the end face (not penetrating to the end face), leaving a wall portion and placing waveguide ends set back from the substrate edge by e.g., 5 µm (see Fig. 4, description: groove 40 formed up to a portion 5 µm form wall portion. This directly teaches that the waveguides end may be set back (closer to the inner side) from the substrate end.)
40. As to claim 17, 517’ discloses the optical device according to claim 11, further comprising: a protective layer which is formed adjacent to the optical waveguide, wherein, at least a portion of an end portion of the protective layer surrounding the optical waveguide and an end portion of the optical waveguide jointly form the central portion. (517’ teaches forming a surface protective film (e.g., SiO2 by CVD/sputtering) after groove formation; 517’ also teaches maintaining clad/protective films at side surfaces and using protective films to avoid exposing core, noting “a surface protective film is formed of a material such as SiO2 by a CVD method, a sputtering method, or the like.” Embodiments show protective/clad material remaining adjacent to the core and end region-the protective layer end region can jointly form the end/coupling surface).
41. As to claim 18, 517’ discloses the optical device according to claim 17, wherein, an end portion of the protective layer is closer to an inner side than an end portion of the substrate as viewed from the first direction (517’ discloses non-penetrating grooves leaving a wall portion and describes retaining cladding/protection at the side surfaces; the protective layer/clad remaining can be located inboard of the substrate edge).
42. As to claim 19, even though 517’ discloses waveguide cross-sectional structures (underclad 2a, core 3, overclad 2b) and describes “square plate-shaped” portions, tapered plate-shaped portions and multilayer core heights, 517’ doesn’t explicitly disclose the optical waveguide comprises a slab portion and a ridge portion formed on the slab portion; the central portion is least on the ridge portion.
43. However, since 517’ discloses planar PLC-type cores, one of ordinary skill in the art would know that ridge-on-slab geometries are routine variations of planar waveguides and conventional for confinement. Thus forming a ridge on a slab to produce inclined ridge end-face would have been obvious for being routine waveguide fabrication alternatives.
44. 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 optical waveguide of 517’ to comprise a slab portion and a ridge portion formed on the slab portion; the central portion is formed at least on the ridge portion to obtain predictable result.
45. As to claim 20, 517’ teaches PLCs formed in SiO2/Si (quartz system) in the examples but does not explicitly teaches the optical device according to claim 11, wherein, the optical waveguide is formed by an electro-optic material film.
46. However, examiner takes official notice that is common and known in the art to form waveguides using various substrate/material systems including electro-optic films.
47. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have waveguide that is formed of an electro-optic films for several advantages such as: ultra-high speed transmission , low power consumption and low power loss.
Conclusion
48. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
49. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TARIFUR RASHID CHOWDHURY whose telephone number is (571)272-2287. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8 am-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, Allana L. Bidder can be reached at (571)272-5560. 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.
/TARIFUR R CHOWDHURY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights