CTNF 18/767,478 CTNF 101705 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. 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1-2 and 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cai (CN 111490827 A) in light of Lin (US Pat. 11714243 B2) . Regarding Claim 1, Cai teaches An optical device comprising: a first edge coupler (FIG. 1: 102) that is connected to a polarization multiplexer-demultiplexer (FIG. 1: 142, 141; p. 6, ¶ 4) and that makes contact with an end face (FIG. 1: 102); a second edge coupler (FIG. 1: 101) that is connected to an optical hybrid circuit (FIG. 1: “LO”) and that makes contact with the end face (FIG. 1: 101); a first taper portion that directs light from the end face and that is contained in the first edge coupler (FIG. 1: 102); and a second taper portion that directs light from the end face and that is contained in the second edge coupler (FIG. 1: 101), Cai does not teach wherein the second taper portion has a structure in which a taper angle of the second taper portion with respect to the end face is smaller than a taper angle of the first taper portion with respect to the end face. Lin teaches wherein the second taper portion has a structure in which a taper angle of the second taper portion with respect to the end face is smaller (FIG. 8c: θt) than a taper angle of the first taper portion with respect to the end face (FIG. 8b: θt; ([0052]) (“…more scattered light R4, R5, R6 at the edges of the side surface of the waveguide 703 compared to that of FIG. 8(b) as the taper angle required for the total internal reflection is smaller”)). Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the edge couplers in Cai such that the waveguide angles were different based on Lin’s teachings. Such a combination would merely be applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield a predictable result. Lin and Cai are both relate to optical communication systems and are therefore analogous art. Regarding Claim 2 , the combination of Lin and Cai teaches The optical device according to claim 1, wherein the second taper portion has a structure in which a taper length of the second taper portion is longer than a taper length of the first taper portion. (It is inherent that if the second taper angle is smaller than the first taper angle, that the length of the second taper would be longer than the length of the first taper) Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the edge couplers in Cai such that the waveguide angles were different based on Lin’s teachings. Such a combination would merely be applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield a predictable result. Regarding Claim 6 , the combination of Lin and Cai teaches The optical device according to claim 1, wherein the first edge coupler inputs light from the end face as a signal light ( Cai , FIG. 1: 102), and the second edge coupler inputs light from the end face as local oscillation light ( Cai , FIG. 1: “LO”). Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the edge couplers in Cai such that the waveguide angles were different based on Lin’s teachings. Such a combination would merely be applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield a predictable result. Regarding Claim 7 , the combination of Lin and Cai teaches The optical device according to claim 1, wherein the second edge coupler inputs light of which polarized state is transverse electric (TE) from the end face. ( Cai , p. 7, ¶ 4 (“That is, the light input comprises at least two components, each component is polarized by corresponding light polarization, such as transverse electric (TE) component and transverse magnetic (TM) component”)) Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the edge couplers in Cai such that the waveguide angles were different based on Lin’s teachings. Such a combination would merely be applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield a predictable result. Regarding Claim 8 , Cai teaches An optical receiver comprising an optical receiver element that converts signal light that is received into an electric signal (FIG. 1), wherein the optical receiver element includes a first edge coupler (FIG. 1: 102) that is connected to a polarization multiplexer-demultiplexer (FIG. 1: 142, 141; p. 6, ¶ 4) and that makes contact with an end face (FIG. 1: 102); a second edge coupler (FIG. 1: 101) that is connected to an optical hybrid circuit (FIG. 1: “LO”) and that makes contact with the end face (FIG. 1: 101); Cai does not teach a first taper portion that directs light from the end face and that is contained in the first edge coupler; and a second taper portion that directs light from the end face and that is contained in the second edge coupler, and the second taper portion has a structure in which a taper angle of the second taper portion with respect to the end face is smaller than a taper angle of the first taper portion with respect to the end face. Lin teaches a first taper portion that directs light from the end face (FIG. 8b: θt) and that is contained in the first edge coupler ( Id. ); and a second taper portion that directs light from the end face (FIG. 8c: θt) and that is contained in the second edge coupler ( Id. ), and the second taper portion has a structure in which a taper angle of the second taper portion with respect to the end face is smaller than a taper angle of the first taper portion with respect to the end face ([0052]) (“…more scattered light R4, R5, R6 at the edges of the side surface of the waveguide 703 compared to that of FIG. 8(b) as the taper angle required for the total internal reflection is smaller”)). Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the edge couplers in Cai such that the waveguide angles were different based on Lin’s teachings. Such a combination would merely be applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield a predictable result. Regarding Claim 9 , Cai teaches An optical transceiver comprising: an optical modulator element that modulates light that is directed according to an electric signal (FIG. 1); an optical receiver element that converts reception light that is received into an electric signal ( Id. ); and a signal processor that generates an electric signal to the optical modulator element and that acquires the electric signal from the optical receiver element ( Id. ), wherein the optical receiver element includes a first edge coupler (FIG. 1: 102) that is connected to a polarization multiplexer-demultiplexer (FIG. 1: 142, 141; p. 6, ¶ 4) and that makes contact with an end face (FIG. 1: 102); a second edge coupler (FIG. 1: 101) that is connected to an optical hybrid circuit (FIG. 1: “LO”) and that makes contact with the end face (FIG. 1: 101); Cai does not teach a first taper portion that directs light from the end face and that is contained in the first edge coupler; and a second taper portion that directs light from the end face and that is contained in the second edge coupler, wherein the second taper portion has a structure in which a taper angle of the second taper portion with respect to the end face is smaller than a taper angle of the first taper portion with respect to the end face. Lin teaches a first taper portion that directs light from the end face (FIG. 8b: θt) and that is contained in the first edge coupler ( Id. ); and a second taper portion (FIG. 8c: θt) that directs light from the end face and that is contained in the second edge coupler ( Id. ), wherein the second taper portion has a structure in which a taper angle of the second taper portion with respect to the end face is smaller than a taper angle of the first taper portion with respect to the end face. ([0052]) (“…more scattered light R4, R5, R6 at the edges of the side surface of the waveguide 703 compared to that of FIG. 8(b) as the taper angle required for the total internal reflection is smaller”)). Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the edge couplers in Cai such that the waveguide angles were different based on Lin’s teachings. Such a combination would merely be applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield a predictable result . 07-21-aia AIA Claim(s ) 3-5 is /are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ca i (CN 111490827 A) in light of Lin (US Pat. 11714243 B2) and in further light of Piazza (US Pat. App. Pub. 2018/0321445 A1). Re garding Claim 3 , the combination of Lin and Cai teaches The optical device according to claim 1, the combination of Lin and Cai does not teach further including: a first excess portion that connects to the first taper portion on a side of the end face; and a second excess portion that connects to the second taper portion on the side of the end face, wherein the second taper portion has a structure in which a waveguide width of the second taper portion on the side of the end face is narrower than a waveguide width of the first taper portion on the side of the end face. Piazza teaches a first excess portion that connects to the first taper portion on a side of the end face; and a second excess portion that connects to the second taper portion on the side of the end face, wherein the second taper portion has a structure in which a waveguide width of the second taper portion on the side of the end face is narrower than a waveguide width of the first taper portion on the side of the end face. (FIG. 1A). Piazza and Lin both relate to optical communication systems and are therefore analogous art. Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the edge coupler/waveguide arrangement taught in Cai to include the waveguide coupling arrangement taught in Piazza . Such a combination would merely be applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield a predictable result. Regarding Claim 4 , the combination of Lin , Cai , and Piazza teach The optical device according to claim 3, wherein the first excess portion has a structure in which a waveguide length of the first excess portion is shorter than a waveguide length of the second excess portion. ( Piazza , FIG. 5A) ( Piazza teaches extending the first waveguide (22) until it reaches the center vertices of the second waveguide (21). As previously stated, it is inherent that if the second taper angle is smaller than the first taper angle, that the length of the second taper would be longer than the length of the first taper. It would then be further inherent that if the first waveguide (22) extends to the center vertices of the second waveguide (21) for both pairs of edge couplers/waveguides, that — due to the differing taper lengths — the second excess portion would inherently be longer than the first excess portion.) Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the edge coupler/waveguide arrangement taught in Cai to include the waveguide coupling arrangement taught in Piazza . Such a combination would merely be applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield a predictable result. Regarding Claim 5 , the combination of Lin , Cai , and Piazza teach The optical device according to claim 1, wherein the second taper portion includes a third taper portion that is arranged on a side of the end face; and a fourth taper portion that optically connects to the third taper portion, and the third taper portion has a structure in which a taper angle of the third taper portion with respect to the end face is smaller than a taper angle of the fourth taper portion with respect to the end face. ( Piazza , FIG. 5A (if the angle of the second taper portion is smaller than the first, the angle of the third taper portion would inherently be smaller than the angle of the fourth portion)). Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the edge coupler/waveguide arrangement taught in Cai to include the waveguide coupling arrangement taught in Piazza . Such a combination would merely be applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield a predictable result. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL M BROCK whose telephone number is (571)272-7257. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4:30pm. 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, Kenneth Vanderpuye can be reached at (571) 272-3078. 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. /PAUL MORGAN BROCK/Examiner, Art Unit 2634 May 7, 2026 /KENNETH N VANDERPUYE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2634 Application/Control Number: 18/767,478 Page 2 Art Unit: 2634 Application/Control Number: 18/767,478 Page 3 Art Unit: 2634 Application/Control Number: 18/767,478 Page 4 Art Unit: 2634 Application/Control Number: 18/767,478 Page 5 Art Unit: 2634 Application/Control Number: 18/767,478 Page 6 Art Unit: 2634 Application/Control Number: 18/767,478 Page 7 Art Unit: 2634 Application/Control Number: 18/767,478 Page 8 Art Unit: 2634 Application/Control Number: 18/767,478 Page 9 Art Unit: 2634
Prosecution Insights