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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s Amendment filed on July 30, 2026 has been fully considered and entered.
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, 8-10 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lebby et al. (US 2020/0285085 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lebby discloses a coupling structure (Fig. 19), comprising: a waveguide core layer (232) supporting a guided mode, wherein the waveguide core layer comprises an in-coupling layer (left side of 232; paragraph 0056 discloses “light enters passive core region 232 at the left”), an out-coupling layer (right side of 232; paragraph 0056 discloses light “leaks back out into passive core region 232 at the other end”) and a gap (central portion of 232) between the in-coupling layer and the out-coupling layer; and an active layer (240) disposed above the waveguide core layer; a coupling layer (top layer of 232 in direct contact with 240) disposed on the waveguide core layer and below the active layer; and a coupling region (central portion of 232 and 240) comprising a portion of the active layer and a portion of the waveguide core layer which includes the gap; wherein in the coupling region, the waveguide core layer and the active layer are coupled such that the guided mode is supported by the active layer above the gap and the guided mode is supported by the waveguide core layer outside the coupling region (paragraph 0056 describes how “light is coupled from passive core region 232 up into active components 239 and 240 and back down into passive core region 232”), and wherein the active layer outside the coupling region is angled (251) with respect to the active layer in the coupling region such that a distance between the waveguide core layer and the active layer gradually increases away from the coupling region (see Fig. 19; paragraph 0056).
Regarding claim 8, Lebby discloses the out-coupling layer and the active layer are arranged such that the guided mode in the coupling region in the active layer is coupled to the out-coupling layer in paragraph 0056.
Regarding claim 9, Lebby discloses the out-coupling layer and the active layer are arranged such that at least part of the guided mode in the coupling region in the active layer is coupled to the active layer outside the coupling region in paragraph 0056, since the slant in the active layer outside the coupling region is disclosed as “an adiabatic transition and the angle determines the amount or speed” of the leaking; i.e., the leaking does not occur instantaneously and at least part of the guided mode in the coupling region in the active layer is coupled to the active layer outside the coupling region.
Regarding claim 10, Lebby discloses the active layer outside the coupling region is at a first angle with respect to the active layer in the coupling region, and wherein the first angle is less than 30 degrees in paragraph 0056.
Regarding claim 12, Lebby discloses the active layer is configured as an electro-optic modulator for modulating amplitude and/or phase of the guided mode supported by the waveguide core layer in paragraphs 0053 and 0056.
Regarding claim 13, Lebby discloses the active layer comprises an electro-optic material, such as an electro-optic polymer in paragraph 0054.
Regarding claim 14, Lebby discloses the active layer comprises a semiconductor, such as Si, Ge, InP, GaAs, InGaAs, InAIGaAs and combinations thereof in paragraph 0055.
Regarding claim 15, Lebby discloses a top layer (250) disposed on a coupling layer (top layer of 232) outside the coupling region, forming a slope (251) towards the coupling region, and wherein the active layer is disposed on the top layer outside the coupling region and on the coupling layer in the coupling region in Fig. 19.
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 6 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lebby et al. (US 2020/0285085 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Lebby teaches the claimed invention except for a width of the waveguide layer is tapered down towards a center of the coupling region. However, tapered waveguides are ubiquitous in the art of optical devices and as such, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to form a width of the waveguide layer tapered down towards a center of the coupling region for the purpose of maximizing the coupling.
Regarding claim 11, Lebby teaches the claimed invention except for the active layer is configured as a photodiode. However, active layers used as photodiodes are ubiquitous in the art of optical devices and as such, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to configure the active layer as a photodiode for detecting the guided mode supported by the waveguide core layer for the purpose of providing electro-optical capability.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed July 30, 2026, with respect to claims have been considered but are not persuasive.
On page 6, Applicant states that “an outer region of the active component/region 240 is not angled with respect to an inner region; its edge is merely bevelled.” Applicant cites Fig. 20E of Lebby as support. However, the active region 240 is not visible in Fig. 20E. Thus, it is unclear how the figure supports Applicant’s assertion. Further, Fig. 20F of Lebby appears to show active region 240 with end surfaces abutting angled planes, which would result in the end surfaces angled as well. Additionally, Fig. 19 shows the claimed “active layer outside the coupling is angled (251) with respect to the active layer in the coupling region.”
On page 7, Applicant states that Lebby does not disclose the claimed coupling layer because “there is no layer in between the passive core layer 232 and the active component/region 240.” However, as stated in the rejection of originally filed claim 2, now incorporated into claim 1, the top layer of 232 in direct contact with 240 constitutes the claimed coupling layer. In other words, passive core region 232 must contain a top layer which contacts active region 240. The top layer necessarily couples light from the passive core region 232 to the action region 240, since Lebby discloses evanescent optical coupling between the two regions in paragraph 0057. This top layer of 232 therefore reads on the claimed coupling layer. Applicant does not specifically address or rebut this, and thus the prima facie rejection made cannot be overcome. Further, it is noted that no language in the claim differentiates the coupling layer from the waveguide core layer (passive core layer 232 of Lebby), either by material, structure or otherwise.
On pages 8-9, Applicant states that “the passive core layer 232 does not contain a gap between its left and right side.” However, the claim only requires “a gap between the in-coupling layer and the out-coupling layer.” As stated in the rejection of claim 1 above, the in-coupling layer is the portion of passive core region 232 to the left of the central portion of the passive core region. The central portion is directly below active region 240 and serves to evanescently couple light as described by Lebby in paragraph 0057. This is physically and optically distinct from the in-coupling layer at the left side, in which light is entirely guided by the passive core region 232. Naturally, the out-coupling layer is the portion of passive core region 232 to the right of the central portion of the passive core region. The central region is therefore disposed between the in-coupling layer and the out-coupling layer and as a result, a gap exists between the in-coupling layer and the out-coupling layer. It follows that the claimed “coupling region” includes said central region of passive core region 232 as well as the active region 240 above it. This is how “light is coupled from passive core region 232 up into active components 239 and 240 and back down into passive core region 232 by an adiabatic transition enhanced by the evanescent optical coupling” as specifically stated by Lebby in paragraph 0057.
For the reasons stated above, the prima facie rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRIS H CHU whose telephone number is (571)272-8655. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9AM-5PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Uyen-Chau Le can be reached on 571-272-239797. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Any inquiry of a general or clerical nature should be directed to the Technology Center 2800 receptionist at telephone number (571) 272-1562.
Chris H. Chu
/CHRIS H CHU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874 September 23, 2026
