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 .
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
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 and 3-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by
US 2021/0181414 (“LEE”).
Regarding claim 1, LEE teaches an optical coupler (400), comprising: a first core (top) including a first portion (left of 410B), a second portion (between 410B and 410D), and a third portion (right of 410D), wherein the second portion of the first core is optically connected between the first portion and the second portion of the first core, and wherein the first core has a first surface (FIG. 4); and a second core (bottom) including a first portion (left of 410A), a second portion (between 410A and 410C), and a third portion (right of 410C), wherein the second portion of the second core is optically connected between the first portion and the second portion of the second core, and wherein the second core has a second surface (FIG. 4); wherein each of the first and the second cores are covered by cladding, and wherein each of the first and the second cores has an index of refraction higher than an index of refraction of the cladding (par. [0060]); wherein a first spacing between the first surface along the first portion of the first core and the second surface along the first portion of the second core adiabatically tapers narrower towards the second portions of the first and the second cores (FIG. 4; pars. [0036]-[0039]); wherein a width of the second portion of the second core is tapered narrower or wider from or after the first portion of the second core and towards the third portion of the second core (from W2 to Ws); wherein a width of the third portion of the second core (Ws) is narrower than a width of the first core (W1); wherein a second spacing between the first surface along the third portion of the first core and the second surface along the third portion of the second core adiabatically tapers wider away from the second portions of the first and the second cores (FIG. 4; pars. [0036]-[0039]).
Regarding claims 3, 5, and 7, LEE teaches that a width of each of the first core, the first portion of the second core, and the third portion of the second core is constant (Ws).
Regarding claim 4, LEE teaches that a width of each (a) of the first portion of the second core and (b) at a first port, of the second portion of the second core, connected to the first portion (W2) of the second core is greater than a width of the first core (Ws).
Regarding claim 6, LEE teaches that a width of each (a) of the first portion of the second core and (b) at a first port, of the second portion of the second core, connected to the first portion (W2) of the second core is less than a width of the first core (W1).
Regarding claim 8, LEE teaches that a third spacing between the first surface of the second portion of the first core and the second surface of the second portion of the second core is constant (FIG. 4).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 2 and 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEE in view of US 2020/0076153 (CHAOUCH”).
Regarding claim 2, LEE teaches the limitations of the base claim 1. LEE does not teach that each of the first core covered by the cladding and the second core covered by the cladding is on a substrate. CHAOUCH teaches first and second cores (124) and claddings (par. [0032]) on a substrate (200; FIG. 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to modify the coupler of LEE with the substrate of CHAOUCH. The motivation would have been to provide mechanical support.
Regarding claim 9, LEE teaches a method of reducing insertion loss in an optical coupler (400) including a first core (top) including a first surface and a second core (bottom) including a second surface, the method comprising: receiving, at a first port of a first portion of the second core, an input optical signal (402), wherein the second core include a first portion (left of 410A), a second portion (between 410A and 410C), and a third portion (right of 410C), and wherein the second portion of the second core is optically connected between the first portion and the second portion of the second core (FIG. 4); wherein a first spacing between the first surface along the first portion of the first core and the second surface along the first portion of the second core adiabatically tapers narrower towards the second portions of the first and the second cores (FIG. 4; pars. [0036]-[0039]), wherein each of the first core is covered by cladding, and wherein each of the first and the second cores has an index of refraction which is larger than an index of refraction of the cladding (par. [0060]); coupling a coupled optical signal from the second portion of the second core to the second portion of the first core, wherein the coupled optical signal comprises at least a portion of power of the input optical signal (FIG. 4); emitting a first output optical signal from the third portion of the second core (424), wherein the first output optical signal comprises at least another portion of power of the input optical signal (FIG. 4); and emitting a second output optical signal from the third portion of the first core (422), wherein the second output optical signal is at least a portion of power of the coupled optical signal (FIG. 4), and wherein a second spacing between the first surface along the third portion of the first core and the second surface along the third portion of the second core adiabatically tapers wider away from the second portions of the first and the second cores (FIG. 4; pars. [0036]-[0039]).
LEE does not teach that the input optical signal consists of only a transverse electric fundamental mode or a transverse magnetic fundamental mode. CHAOUCH teaches an input optical signal that consists of only a transverse electric fundamental mode or a transverse magnetic fundamental mode (par. [0047]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to modify the method of LEE such that the input optical signal consists of only a transverse electric fundamental mode or a transverse magnetic fundamental mode, as taught by CHAOUCH. The motivation would have been to prevent undesired modal mixing.
Regarding claim 10, CHAOUCH teaches that each of the first core covered by the cladding and the second core covered by the cladding is on a substrate (FIG. 2).
Regarding claim 11, LEE teaches that a width of each of the first core, the first portion of the second core, and the third portion of the second core is constant (Ws).
Regarding claim 12, LEE teaches that a width of each (a) of the first portion of the second core and (b) at a first port, of the second portion of the second core, connected to the first portion (W2) of the second core is greater than a width of the first core (Ws).
Regarding claim 13, LEE teaches that a width of each (a) of the first portion of the second core and (b) at a first port, of the second portion of the second core, connected to the first portion (W2) of the second core is less than a width of the first core (W1).
Regarding claim 14, LEE teaches that a third spacing between the first surface of the second portion of the first core and the second surface of the second portion of the second core is constant (FIG. 4).
Claims 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEE in view of US 2011/0103415 (“RASRAS”).
Regarding claim 15, LEE teaches an optical resonator (500) comprising: a first optical coupler (530) including: a first core (top) including a first portion (left), a second portion (central), and a third portion (right), wherein the second portion of the first core is optically connected between the first portion and the second portion of the first core, and wherein the first core has a first surface (FIG. 5); and a second core (bottom) including a first portion (left), a second portion (central), and a third portion (right), wherein the second portion of the second core is optically connected between the first portion and the second portion of the second core, and wherein the second core has a second surface (FIG. 5); wherein each of the first and the second cores are covered by cladding and wherein each of the first and the second cores has an index of refraction higher than an index of refraction of the cladding (par. [0060]); wherein a first spacing between the first surface along the first portion of the first core and the second surface along the first portion of the second core adiabatically tapers narrower towards the second portions of the first and the second cores (FIG. 5; pars. [0036]-[0039]); wherein a width of the second portion of the second core is tapered narrower or wider from or after the first portion of the second core and towards the third portion of the second core; wherein a width of the third portion of the second core is narrower than a width of the first core (FIG. 5); wherein a second spacing between the first surface along the third portion of the first core and the second surface along the third portion of the second core adiabatically tapers wider away from the second portions of the first and the second cores (FIG. 5; pars. [0036]-[0039]); a second optical coupler (550) including: a third core (top) including a first portion (left), a second portion (central), and a third portion (right), wherein the second portion of the third core is optically connected between the first portion and the second portion of the third core, and wherein the third core has a third surface (FIG. 5); and a fourth core (bottom) including a first portion (left), a second portion (central), and a third portion (right), wherein the second portion of the fourth core is optically connected between the first portion and the second portion of the fourth core, and wherein the fourth core has a fourth surface (FIG. 5); wherein each of the third and the fourth cores are covered by the cladding, and wherein each of the third and the fourth cores has an index of refraction higher than an index of refraction of the cladding (par. [0060]; wherein a third spacing between the third surface along the first portion of the third core and the fourth surface along the first portion of the fourth core adiabatically tapers narrower towards the second portions of the third and the fourth cores (FIG. 5; pars. [0036]-[0039]); wherein a width of the second portion of the fourth core is tapered narrower or wider from or after the first portion of the fourth core and towards the third portion of the fourth core; and wherein a width of the third portion of the fourth core is narrower than a width of the third core (FIG. 5); wherein a fourth spacing between the third surface along the third portion of the third core and the fourth surface along the third portion of the fourth core adiabatically tapers wider away from the second portions of the third and the fourth cores (FIG. 5; pars. [0036]-[0039]).
LEE does not teach a first resonator optical waveguide optically connected between a first port of the first portion of the first core and a second port of the third portion of the fourth core; and a second resonator optical waveguide optically connected between a second port of the third portion of the first core and a first port of a first portion of the fourth core. RASRAS teaches a first resonator optical waveguide (123) optically connected between a first port of a first portion of a first core (top coupler 150; FIG. 2A) and a second port of a third portion of a fourth core (top coupler 145); and a second resonator optical waveguide (205) optically connected between a second port of a third portion of a first core (bottom coupler 145) and a first port of a first portion of a fourth core (bottom coupler 150). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to modify the resonator of LEE so as to include the first and second resonator optical waveguides, as taught by RASRAS. The motivation would have been to confine and amplify the outputted signal.
Regarding claim 16, LEE teaches that at least one of: a width of each of the first core, the first portion of the second core, and the third portion of the second core is constant; and a width of each of the third core, the first portion of the fourth core, and the third portion of the fourth core is constant (Ws).
Regarding claim 17, LEE teaches that at least one of: a width of each (a) of the first portion of the second core and (b) at a first port of the second portion of the second core, connected to the first portion of the second core is greater than the width of the first core; and a width of each (a) of the first portion of the fourth core and (b) at a first port of the second portion of the fourth core, connected to the first portion of the fourth core (W2) is greater than the width of the third core (Ws).
Regarding claim 18, LEE teaches that at least one of: a width of each (a) of the first portion of the second core and (b) at a first port, of the second portion of the second core, connected to the first portion of the second core is less than the width of the first core; and a width of each (x) of the first portion of the fourth core and (y) at a first port, of the second portion of the fourth core, connected to the first portion of the fourth core (Ws) is less than the width of the third core (W1).
Regarding claim 19, LEE teaches that at least one of: a fifth spacing between the first surface of the second portion of the first core and the second surface of the second portion of the second core is constant; and a sixth spacing between the first surface of the second portion of the third core and the second surface of the second portion of the fourth core is constant (FIG. 4).
Regarding claim 20, RASRAS teaches that each of the first, the second, the third, and the fourth cores, the first resonator optical waveguide, and the second resonator optical waveguide is formed by planar optical waveguide on a substrate (110).
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
Prosecution Insights