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
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on July 7, 2025 and November 14, 2025 have been considered by the Examiner.
Drawings
Fifteen sheets for formal drawings were filed June 26, 2024 and have been accepted by the Examiner.
Specification
Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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, 2, 4, 5, 8, 10, 11, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Piede et al. (US 2008/0253713 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Piede discloses an optical waveguide device comprising a waveguide core (14 in Figs. 3a-3b and 5a-5b) for receiving an incoming light beam (“B”), propagating light components inside the waveguide core, and outputting a light beam; and a selective-absorber layer (52) deposited on the waveguide core, the selective-absorber layer being composed of an indirect-bandgap semiconductor material (abstract; overlying segments are polysilicon).
Still regarding claim 1, it is a known property of polysilicon to absorb light of shorter wavelengths, while propagating longer wavelengths. Therefore, the bandgap energy of polysilicon is necessarily greater than a maximum photon energy associated with one or more first constituent wavelengths and less than a minimum photon energy associated with one or more second constituent wavelengths such that when the light components interact with the selective-absorber layer during propagation inside the waveguide core, the shorter wavelength light component is attenuated while an optical power of the longer light component is retained. Thus, the device of Piede will behave as an optical long-pass filter for long-pass filtering an incoming light beam to yield a filtered light beam, the incoming light beam including a desired light component (longer wavelength) and an undesired light component (shorter wavelength). The courts have held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 2, Piede discloses the indirect-bandgap semiconductor material is polycrystalline silicon (poly-Si) in the abstract.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Piede discloses the waveguide core is realized as a strip waveguide or rib waveguide in Figs. 3a-3b and paragraph 0035.
Regarding claims 8 and 10, Piede discloses an optical-insulator layer (abstract; SOI-based structure) on which the waveguide core is positioned, wherein the optical-insulator layer provides a first reflective interface between the waveguide core and the optical-insulator layer to reflect the desired light component during propagation of the desired light component inside the waveguide core (paragraph 0039 discloses total internal reflection).
Regarding claim 11, Piede discloses a cladding deposited on at least a combined body consisting of the selective-absorber layer and the waveguide core, wherein the cladding is an optical-insulator cladding providing a second reflective interface between the waveguide core and the optical-insulator cladding to reflect the desired light component during propagation of the desired light component inside the waveguide core (paragraph 0039 discloses total internal reflection between core 14 and adjacent material such as air).
Regarding claim 13, Piede discloses the waveguide core is shaped to be straight in Figs. 3a-5b.
Regarding claim 14, Piede discloses the waveguide core is shaped to be bent in Figs. 3a-3b and 6-8.
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 3, 6, 7, 9, 12 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Piede et al. (US 2008/0253713 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Piede teaches the claimed invention except for specifically stating the selective-absorber layer has a thickness of less than or equal to 100nm. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrive at the claimed thickness, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Piede teaches the claimed invention except for the material of the waveguide core. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the waveguide core from the claimed materials, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 9, Piede teaches the claimed invention except for the material of the optical-insulator layer. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the optical-insulator layer from the claimed materials, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 12, Piede teaches the claimed invention except for the material of the cladding. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the cladding from the claimed materials, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claims 15-18, Piede further discloses the polysilicon selective absorption layer 84 has a gradual transition between the unfiltered section and the filtered section of the waveguide core, such that the filter section is a first longitudinal section of the waveguide core being entirely covered with the selective-absorber layer; and the non-filter section is a second longitudinal section of the waveguide core being entirely not covered with any of the selective-absorber layer in Figs. 5a-5b. Piede teaches the claimed invention except for specifically stating the shape of the selective-absorber layer. However, a multitude of coupling transition shapes are well-known and commonly used in the art and as such, one having ordinary skill before the filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to use an abrupt transition, a tilted contour, a one-stage contour or a two-stage contour in order to adjust the beam characteristics.
Regarding claim 19, Piede teaches the claimed invention except for one or more nonlinear quantum light sources. However, nonlinear quantum light sources are well-known and commonly used in the art and as such, one having ordinary skill before the filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to use one or more nonlinear quantum light sources collectively configured to perform a spontaneous parametric down-conversion of an input laser beam to nonlinearly generate a first light beam the beam characteristics for the purpose of allowing for quantum information processing.
Regarding claim 20, Piede teaches the claimed invention except for one or more photonic circuits for processing the output light beam. However, photonic circuits are well-known and commonly used in the art and as such, one having ordinary skill before the filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to use one or more photonic circuits for processing the output light beam for the purpose of allowing for additional processing of the light beam.
Concise Statement of Relevance
The additional references listed in the Notice of References cited relate to optical filtering.
Conclusion
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 August 18, 2026
Prosecution Insights