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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 19 August 2024 complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the examiner has considered the information disclosure statement.
Drawings
The drawings submitted have been reviewed and determined to facilitate understanding of the invention. The drawings are accepted as submitted.
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.
Claims 1-2, 5-7, 10-12, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent Application Publication US 2021/0231866 A1 to Tu et al. (“US1”).
Regarding Claim 1, US1 describes an article of manufacture (see Figs 2A-3C) comprising:
a cladding (“insulator”, see [0037], [0040], [0043]) including portions characterized by a cladding index of refraction;
a larger-mode region (“second shaped linear structure”, see Figs 2A-3C and [0040]-[0043]) configured to propagate at least a first optical mode characterized by a first mode field diameter at a first position along a propagation axis of the larger-mode region;
a smaller-mode region (“first shaped linear structure”, see Figs 2A-3C and [0040]-[0043]) comprising at least one core structure embedded within the cladding, the core structure of the smaller-mode region characterized by an index of refraction that is larger than the cladding index of refraction (see [0040]), and positioned to couple one or more optical modes guided by the smaller-mode region characterized by a second mode field diameter smaller than the first mode field diameter to the first optical mode over a coupling region within the cladding in which the larger-mode region is in proximity to the smaller-mode region (see Figs 2A-3C and [0040]-[0043]); and
one or more stress-modifying formations (221, 222, 223, 224) arranged within or in proximity to one or both of the larger-mode region or the coupling region, wherein the stress-modifying formations modify a stress within a portion of the cladding along a first transverse axis orthogonal to the propagation axis with respect to a stress within the portion of the cladding along a second transverse axis orthogonal to the propagation axis and orthogonal to the first transverse axis (see [0042]-[0043]).
Regarding Claim 2, US1 describes the larger-mode region comprising one or more core structures embedded within the cladding, the core structures of the larger-mode region characterized by an index of refraction that is larger than the cladding index of refraction, and the core structures are arranged to collectively guide at least the first optical mode (see [0041]-[0043]).
Regarding Claim 5, US1 describes the one or more core structures as not cylindrically symmetric about the propagation axis (see Figs 2A-3C).
Regarding Claim 6, US1 describes the one or more core structures or and the one or more stress-modifying formations as embedded within a portion of the cladding characterized by an index of refraction that is larger than the cladding index of refraction (see Figs 2A-3C, [0040], [0043]).
Regarding Claim 7, US1 describes the cladding comprising a first oxide (see [0040]).
Regarding Claim 10, US1 describes the stress-modifying formations comprising at least one air gap embedded within the cladding (see [0042], [0043]).
Regarding Claim 11, US1 describes an optical fiber in proximity to the larger-mode region (see [0002], [0037], [0040], [0042], [0043]) .
Regarding Claim 12, US1 does not describe the stress-modifying structures inducing a birefringence in at least a portion of the core structure of the smaller-mode region such that the portion of the core structure of the smaller-mode region has a first index of refraction along the first transverse axis, the portion of the core structure of the smaller-mode region has a second index of refraction along the second transverse axis, and the first index of refraction is larger than the second index of refraction. However, such conditions are inherent to the structure and associated functions as described by US1 (see Figs 2A-3C and [0042]-[0043], where the deep trench structures and materials are used to match modes).
Claims 17-18 describe methods substantially embodied by the above-discussed devices of Claims 1 and 7. Therefore, Claims 17-18 are rejected in view of US1 for substantially the same reasoning.
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 (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.
Claims 8-9, 16, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US1 as applied to Claims 1, 7, and/or 18 above.
Regarding Claims 8 and 9, US1 is silent as to the material of stress-modifying formations, describing them as filled by a different material from the cladding layer (see [0042], [0043]). Metal, silicon nitride, silicon oxynitride, silicon, or oxides having a different density than the first oxide are well-known materials for use in optical waveguiding devices. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use such materials for the stress-modifying formations of US1, 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. The motivation for doing so would have been to take advantage of the optical, physical, and manufacturing properties of such materials.
Claims 19-20 describe methods substantially embodied by the above-discussed devices of Claims 8-9. Therefore, Claims 19-20 are rejected in view of US1 for substantially the same reasoning.
Regarding Claim 16, US1 is silent as to the size of the first mode field diameter. However, US1 does describe that the first larger mode region is intended to match modes of an optical wave traveling form a fiber (see [0042], [0043]). Optical fibers having mode field diameters larger than 5 microns are well-known in the art. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the larger mode region of US1 having a first mode field diameter larger than 5 microns, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4 and 13-15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 3 describes the one or more core structures comprise a plurality of core structures.
Claim 13 describes first transverse axis associated with a first polarization of at least one optical mode guided by the core structure of the smaller-mode region, the second transverse axis associated with a second polarization of at least one optical mode guided by the core structure of the smaller-mode region.
These limitations represent subject matter not described or reasonably suggested, in conjunction with the further limitations of the present claims, by the prior art of record.
Claim 4 depends from Claim 3 and therefore contain at least the same allowable subject matter.
Claims 14-15 depend from Claim 13 and therefore contain at least the same allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
The prior art cited in the attached form PTO-892 are made of record and considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited prior art describes optical structures with multiple modal regions associated with waveguide structures.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JERRY RAHLL whose telephone number is (571)272-2356. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Uyen-Chau Le can be reached at 571-272-2397. 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 RAHLL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874
