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 .
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.
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) 1-5 and 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 6,396,984 to Cho et al.
Cho discloses in figures 3-7, an optical connection structure comprising:
a first optical waveguide (304) which is formed in an optical connection region on a substrate, and has a structure of a rib-type optical waveguide formed by a core (306) and a slab (302) by a rib; and
a second optical waveguide (308) which is disposed on the substrate in the optical connection region to overlap the first optical waveguide in a height direction (in region 314), and formed to extend to one end side of the first optical waveguide,
wherein the first optical waveguide and the second optical waveguide are optically connected in the optical connection region (in the overlapping 314 region), and
a value obtained by dividing a thickness of the rib of the first optical waveguide by a total thickness of the rib of the first optical waveguide and the slab of the first optical waveguide having a ratio (although the claimed value is not explicitly shown, figure 4b depicts a waveguide having varying thickness values for optimization).
As to claims 2-3, figure 3 shows the tapered regions as claimed (dotted lines in figure 3). Note that the claims only require a tapering to “one end” without specifying which end. Therefore the taper can occur in either direction.
As to claims 6-7, the second waveguide is a rib with a taper region (figure 3).
As to claim 8, a waveguide-type semiconductor is optically connected to the other end of the waveguide (figure 10).
Cho fails to explicitly disclose the value obtained by dividing the thickness of the first waveguide by the slab thickness being 0.4 or less. Cho discloses in figures 8a and 8b, the relationship between the thicknesses and optimizing the coupling efficiency.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to create the ratio as claimed to optimize the coupling efficiency since it has been held that discovering an optimum value or range of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho in view of US 5,199,092 to Stegmueller.
Cho discloses the invention as claimed except for inclined regions at the end of the waveguide coupling areas for the respective waveguides. It is noted that height tapering (inclining as claimed) is commonly used in the art to optimize optical coupling.
Stegmueller discloses such optimization of coupling to match modes in figure 1 and the background of invention.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to incline the coupling ends of one or both waveguides as taught by Stegmueller in Cho to match the modes of waveguides that have different dimensions for optimization of optical coupling.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 8,615,148 (figures 6-7 for inclined ends).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Eric K Wong whose telephone number is (571)272-2363. The examiner can normally be reached M-Tu, Th-F 8A-6P.
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 on 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.
ERIC K. WONG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2874
/Eric Wong/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874