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 Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“the same” should read “a same”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 – 6 and 13 – 15 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:
The prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious wherein each of the sub-waveguide layers comprises a plurality of waveguide segments, the plurality of waveguide segments comprising a reduced-width waveguide segment and an equal-width waveguide segment, wherein a width of an orthographic projection of the reduced-width waveguide segment on the substrate is gradually decreased in the direction away from the first end face, and a width of an orthographic projection of the equal-width waveguide segment on the substrate is equal at all positions. The closest relevant prior art of record, Sodagar et al. (U.S. PG Pub. # 2019/0170944), teaches only one layer (131 at 131-1, 120 and 110) having an equal-width waveguide segment on the substrate is equal at all positions, not each of the sub-waveguide layers as claimed.
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.
Claims 1 – 3, 7, 10 – 12 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sodagar et al. (U.S. PG Pub. # 2019/0170944).
In Re claims 1 and 10, ‘944 teaches a photonic device, comprising a spot-size conversion structure the spot-size conversion structure including: a substrate (160), an isolation layer (150) and a waveguide layer arranged in sequence, the waveguide layer comprising N sub-waveguide layers (131 – 137) arranged in sequence along a direction away from the substrate, each of the sub-waveguide layers being of a protrusion shape, and N being a natural number and N > 3, wherein:
the spot-size conversion structure has a first end face (148) configured to be coupled to an integrated optical waveguide, and a second end face (140) opposite to the first end face and configured to be coupled to an optical fiber (at least optically coupled);
in the direction away from the substrate, an orthographic projection of an (n+1)th sub- waveguide layer of the Nsub-waveguide layers on the substrate falls within an orthographic projection of an nth sub-waveguide layer of the Nsub-waveguide layers on the substrate, n being a natural number and 1 < n < N-1 (Fig. 2);
a width of an orthographic projection of each of the sub-waveguide layers on the substrate is gradually narrowed in a direction away from the first end face (148); and
a wide end of each of the sub-waveguide layers extends to the first end face, a narrow end of a first sub-waveguide layer extends to the second end face or is at a distance from the second end face, and a narrow end of the (n+1)th sub-waveguide layer is at a distance from a narrow end of the nth sub-waveguide layer (figs. 1 and 2).
In Re claims 2 and 11, ‘044 teaches the claimed thickness (par.0047).
In Re claims 3 and 12, ‘044 teaches wherein each of the sub-waveguide layers comprises a plurality of waveguide segments (areas of each sub-waveguide), the plurality of waveguide segments comprising a reduced-width waveguide segment, and a width of an orthographic projection of the reduced-width waveguide segment on the substrate is gradually decreased in the direction away from the first end face (fig. 2); and a plurality of waveguide segments of an Nthsub-waveguide layer of the N sub-waveguide layers further comprise an equal-width waveguide segment (120) extending to the first end face, and a width of an orthographic projection of the equal-width waveguide segment on the substrate is equal at all positions (fig. 2).
In Re claims 7 and 16, ‘044 teaches wherein each of orthographic projections of the N sub-waveguide layers on the substrate has an axisymmetric structure with respect to a same axis (a vertical axis bisecting fig. 2)..
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 8, 9, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sodagar et al. (U.S. PG Pub. # 2019/0170944) in view of Chen et al. (U.S. PG Pub. # 2012/0076465 A1).
In Re claims 8, 9, 17 and 18, ‘944 teaches the device of claims 1 and 10, but is silent to wherein the spot-size conversion structure has a plurality of slots extending toward the substrate and exposing the substrate, and a communicating structure provided in the substrate and communicating the plurality of slots, wherein orthographic projections of the plurality of slots on the substrate are distributed on two sides of an orthographic projection of the waveguide layer on the substrate.
‘465 teaches a mode converter (100) which has slots (cavities 120) on either side of a cladded (130) waveguide (125) and a communicating structure (slot 120 under 125) communicating the slots (fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify ‘944 to have a cladding covering all of the converter 100 so as to allow for adequate protection from external environmental factors and aid in guiding light within the converter, whereby the cladding has a plurality of slots disposed about the converter 100 as ‘465 does about the waveguide 125 and wherein the insulator 150 has a communicating structure, a slot, communicating with the plurality of slots and the slots allowing for a cantilever structure of the converter 100 wherein two slots on either side of the converter are exposed at the second end face, thus allowing for optimum confinement and guidance of the light within the converter as a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHAD SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-1294. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 - 5.
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 1-571-272-2397. 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.
/CHAD H SMITH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874