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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 9-11 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 10,429,582 to Bian et al.
Bian discloses in the abstract and figure 16, a system for measuring an efficiency of an optical waveguide termination device, comprising:
A splitter (163) having a first side (162) and a second side (164), the first side having a single port and the second side having two ports (figure 16 shows four outputs from the splitter), in operation, configured to connect to a first optical waveguide including a first optical waveguide termination device (165);
An input grating coupler (161) coupled as claimed; and
An output grating coupler (!67) coupled to a third waveguide (any output portion 166)
As to claims 2 and 13, there are at least 4 outputs form the MMI splitter (figure 16).
As to claims 3-4, the termination device (coupler) includes a taper structure (figures 1-2) with a portion being straight (14) and a wider portion on one end compared to the other.
As to claims 9-11, the waveguides are arranged as claimed where the upper has a different refractive index which would require different material compositions. The areas are surrounded and shown in figures 1A-1B.
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 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.
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.
Claim(s) 5-8 and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bian in view of US 11,841,533 to Bian (hereinafter Bian2).
Bian discloses the invention except for certain disclosures relating to the below claims:
Claims 5-7: doped with n-type/p-type, concentrations and materials.
Claim 8: optical absorption
Claim 16: 3rd waveguide has different lengths from the 4th waveguide.
Bian2 discloses doping of the semiconductor materials to better allow conductivity (column 12, lines 17-59).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to dope the semiconductor materials as claimed and provide the lengths as claimed as taught by Bian2 in Bian to optimize conductivity.
Claim(s) 14-15 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bian as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of US 2024/0159963 to Ling et al.
Bian discloses the invention as claimed except for a vertical taper (claims 14-15) and the splitter being a Y-splitter (claims 17-20). It is noted that these features are commonly known in the art.
Ling discloses such features in the asymmetric taper (115; figure 1) and the splitter in paragraph 45. This optimizes the mode paths.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use the features as taught by Lin in Bian to optimize mode separation and paths.
Claim 12: taper has periodic structure
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bian as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of US 9,671,560 to Fondeur et al.
Bian discloses the invention as claimed except for the periodic structures in the taper area of the coupler.
Fonduer discloses a tapered periodic segmented waveguide coupler to adjust for spot size.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the periodic structures in the taper as taught by Fonduer in Bian to match a spot size of the optical signals being transmitted.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Eric K Wong whose telephone number is (571)272-2363. The examiner can normally be reached M-Tu, Th-F 8A-6P.
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 on 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.
ERIC K. WONG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2874
/Eric Wong/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights