CTNF 18/746,195 CTNF 80914 DETAILED ACTION 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. 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1-4, 6-9, 12, 14-16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by US 2011/0255824 (“LEE”) Regarding claim 1 , LEE teaches a waveguide (FIGs. 1B, 2, 3), comprising: one or more gratings (4a, 13), the one or more gratings comprising a plurality of grating structures disposed over a waveguide substrate (11, 11a), wherein: the grating structures comprise a waveguide material, and the plurality of grating structures comprise exterior grating structures at outer edges of the one or more gratings (FIGs. 1B, 2, 3); a waveguide layer (12, 12a, 121) disposed over the waveguide substrate between the exterior grating structures and an edge of the waveguide substrate, the waveguide layer including the waveguide material; and a coating disposed over the waveguide layer, the coating having a tapered portion (16, 19a, 161) that is tapered from at least one of the exterior grating structures to a planar portion of the coating (FIGs. 1B, 2, 3). Regarding claims 2, 6, 8, and 16 , LEE teaches a waveguide (FIGs. 1B, 2, 3), comprising: one or more gratings (4a, 13) comprising a plurality of grating structures disposed over a waveguide substrate (11, 11a), the plurality of grating structures comprising a waveguide and comprising exterior grating structures at outer edges of the one or more gratings (FIGs. 1B, 2, 3); a waveguide layer (12, 12a, 121) having the waveguide material and disposed over the waveguide substrate between the exterior grating structures and an edge of the waveguide substrate; and a coating disposed over the waveguide layer, the coating having a coating refractive index less than the waveguide layer refractive index (par. [0013]) and having a tapered portion (16, 19a, 161) that is tapered from at least one of the exterior grating structures to a planar portion of the coating adjacent to an outer taper edge of the tapered portion (FIGs. 1B, 2, 3). Regarding claims 4, 12, and 14 , LEE teaches a waveguide (FIGs. 1B, 2, 3), comprising: one or more gratings (4a, 13) comprising a plurality of grating structures disposed over a waveguide substrate (11, 11a), the plurality of grating structures comprise a waveguide material and exterior grating structures at outer edges of the one or more gratings (FIGs. 1B, 2, 3); a waveguide layer (12, 12a, 121) disposed over the waveguide substrate between the exterior grating structures and an edge of the waveguide substrate, the waveguide layer including the waveguide material and having the same thickness as the plurality of grating structures (FIGs. 1B, 2, 3); and a coating disposed over the waveguide layer, the coating having a tapered portion (16, 19a, 161) that is tapered from at least one of the exterior grating structures to a planar portion of the coating (FIGs. 1B, 2, 3). Regarding claims 3, 9, and 15 , LEE teaches that the one or more gratings are one of an input coupling region, an intermediate region, or an output coupling region (FIGs. 1B, 2, 3). Regarding claim 7 , LEE teaches that the coating includes a planar portion adjacent to an outer taper edge of the tapered portion (FIG. 3). Regarding claim 19 , LEE teaches that the tapered portion comprises an outer taper edge adjacent to the planar portion of the coating and an inner taper edge adjacent to the exterior grating structures (FIG. 3) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 5, 11, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEE in view of US 2007/0218264 (“GUENEAU”) . LEE teaches the limitations of the respective base claims. LEE does not teach that the coating has a refractive index of less than 2.0. GUENEAU teaches a coating for an optical waveguide that has a refractive index of less than 2.0 (par. [0021]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to modify the coating of LEE so as to have a refractive index of less than 2.0, as taught by GUENEAU. The motivation would have been to enhance antireflective properties . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 10 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEE in view of US 2023/0010994 (“MINEMURA”) . LEE teaches the limitations of the respective base claims. LEE does not teach that the coating has a thickness of between about 10 nanometers to about 800 nanometers. MINEMURA teaches a coating for an optical waveguide that has a thickness of between about 10 nanometers to about 800 nanometers (par. [0028]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to modify the coating of LEE so as to have a thickness of between about 10 nanometers to about 800 nanometers, as taught by MINEMURA. The motivation would have been to improve diffractive efficiency . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEE in view of US 2022/0260785 (“JIANG”) . LEE teaches the limitations of the respective base claims. LEE does not teach that a distance between the inner taper edge and an outer taper edge of the coating is from about 1 micrometer to about 2000 micrometers. JIANG teaches a coating for an optical waveguide wherein a distance between an inner taper edge and an outer taper edge of the coating is from about 1 micrometer to about 2000 micrometers (pars. [0013], [0143]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to modify the coating of LEE such that a distance between the inner taper edge and an outer taper edge of the coating is from about 1 micrometer to about 2000 micrometers, as taught by JIANG. The motivation would have been to improve optical coupling. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JERRY M BLEVINS whose telephone number is (571)272-8581. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday. 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 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. /JERRY M BLEVINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874 Application/Control Number: 18/746,195 Page 2 Art Unit: 2874 Application/Control Number: 18/746,195 Page 3 Art Unit: 2874 Application/Control Number: 18/746,195 Page 4 Art Unit: 2874 Application/Control Number: 18/746,195 Page 5 Art Unit: 2874 Application/Control Number: 18/746,195 Page 6 Art Unit: 2874
Prosecution Insights