CTNF 18/693,342 CTNF 101863 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on March 19 th , 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. 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: 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1, 3-5, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kojima et al. (US10921525 B2) . Regarding Claim 1 , Kojima et al. discloses a grating coupler comprising a substrate (110) that has a waveguide layer (130) in which a diffraction grating is provided and a clad layer (120) provided on the waveguide layer (Col. 4, 43-48; Fig. 1). Kojima et al. further discloses that the diffracted light is propagated inside the substrate to an emission end surface (Col. 4, 56-60) and the diffracted light is propagated in a direction inclined downward relatively to the diffraction grating (Col. 4, 43-65; Figs. 1, 2A-B). Kojima et al. does not expressly disclose that the emission end surface is inclined relatively to a direction perpendicular to an upper surface of the substrate. However, Kojima et al. expressly teaches that managing the angle of incidence at the chip facet is critical to coupling efficiency. Kojima discloses that “it is best to keep the incident angle below ~20 degrees” and that “reflectivity increases significantly above 16 degrees incident angle” (Fig. 7; Col. 7, 42-55). Kojima et al further discloses that the “optical beam impinging on the chip facet is not normal to the surface, but is 10 to 20 degrees” and that “dielectric films have to be optimized for the incident angle.” (Col. 7, lines 38-45). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the vertical chip facet of Kojima et al. by inclining it relative to the direction perpendicular to the upper substrate surface in order to adjust the angle of incidence of the diffracted beam at the facet and thereby reduce facet reflectivity and optimize emission direction. Regarding Claim 3 , Kojima et al. teaches that a light collection position in a direction perpendicular to a propagation direction of the diffracted light in a planar view is shifted from a light collection position in the direction perpendicular to the upper surface of the substrate (Col. 5, 60-65; Col. 7, 57-65) Regarding Claim 4 , Kojima et al. expressly teaches that a pitch of the diffraction grating changes in the propagation direction of the diffracted light the planar view (Claim 4; Col. 5, 60-65). Regarding Claim 5 , Kojima et al. expressly discloses that a radius of curvature of the diffraction grating changes in the propagation direction of the diffracted light in the planar view (Claim 11; Col. 8, 5-35; Figs. 8A-B). Regarding Claim 7 , Kojima et al. expressly discloses antireflection film provided on the emission end surface and a portion between the antireflection film and a member to which the diffracted light is to be coupled is filled with matching materials corresponding to a refractive index of the member (Col. 5, 54-64; Col. 7, 46-56; Fig. 6). Kojima et a. further discloses the use of index-matching between the coupled elements to optimize coupling efficiency (Col. 4; Claim 9) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kojima et al. (US10921525 B2), in view of Rickman et al. (US6212320 B1) . Regarding Claim 6 , Kojima et al. teaches a grating coupler comprising a substrate (110) that has a waveguide layer (130) in which a diffraction grating is provided and a clad layer (120) provided on the waveguide layer (Fig. 1). Kojima et al. does not expressly teach a groove formed in the substrate for receiving the couple member. However, Rickman et al. expressly discloses an apparatus for coupling an optical fiber to a substrate (3) on an optical chip comprising a groove (2) formed in the end surface of the substrate in a propagation direction of the diffracted light such that the emission end surface becomes a bottom portion, and a member to which the diffracted light is to be coupled is arranged in the groove (Claim 1; Col. 2, 27-49; Figs. 2, 3, 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the groove alignment structure of Rickman et al. into the grating coupler of Kojima et al. in order to provide passive self-alignment of the optical fiber to the emission end surface of the substrate, thereby improving mounting flexibility and reducing alignment complexity. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NASIM KAIRI COOPER whose telephone number is (571)272-9685. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:00. 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 5712701739. 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. /NASIM KAIRI COOPER/Examiner, Art Unit 2874 /THOMAS A HOLLWEG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874 Application/Control Number: 18/693,342 Page 2 Art Unit: 2874 Application/Control Number: 18/693,342 Page 3 Art Unit: 2874 Application/Control Number: 18/693,342 Page 4 Art Unit: 2874
Prosecution Insights