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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/25/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that 420 is absent in the final waveguide structure and 406 is not a waveguide layer, but rather a grating layer. Examiner respectfully disagrees, as the grating is formed in the waveguide and is therefore part of the waveguide. The waveguide does not cease to be once the grating is formed. Furthermore, Meyer Timmerman Thijssen discloses (col. 1, line 62 – col. 2, line 6),
“In one embodiment, a waveguide structure is provided. The structure has a substrate having a grating layer thereon, where a wedge-shaped structure is formed in the grating layer via grayscale lithography. The wedge-shaped structure has a first end, a second end, and a depth, where the depth changes from the first end to the second end. The waveguide structure also has a plurality of channels formed in the grating layer, each channel partially defining a portion of a plurality of grating structures, where a depth of the plurality of grating structures changes from the first end of the wedge-shaped structure to the second end of the wedge-shaped structure.”
This makes clear that the grating is in and part of the waveguide.
A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
For product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties and/or functions are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, 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). MPEP § 2112.01(I).
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.
Claim(s) 1-10, 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 11,372,149 B2 Meyer Timmerman Thijssen et al. (herein “Meyer Timmerman Thijssen”, cited on the attached PTO-892) in view of US 2015/0369976 A1 Magnusson (herein “Magnusson”, cited on the attached PTO-892).
Regarding claim 1, Meyer Timmerman Thijssen discloses in Fig. 4F, a tunable optical filter comprising:
a resonant grating layer (420) having an aperiodic pattern (aperiodic grating shown in Fig. 4F);
a waveguide layer (wedge shown underneath grating layer 420; col. 6, lines 21-25, “waveguide structure 410 is created in the grating layer 406”); and
a substrate layer (402),
wherein at least one of the waveguide layer and the sublayer is inhomogeneous (waveguide in layer 406 is shown as being tapered and therefore inhomogeneous).
Meyer Timmerman Thijssen does not explicitly disclose a sublayer. Examiner notes that Applicant’s claimed sublayer is broadly claimed as having the same refractive index of as the resonant grating layer, but is not explicitly defined as a separate layer made up of a separate material having the same refractive index. In fact, Applicant claims resonant grating layer, the sublayer, and the waveguide can all be made of the same material, and generally Applicant’s figures show the grating and the sublayer as one element. Therefore, part of Meyer Timmerman Thijssen’s grating layer could be considered the sublayer.
Regardless, Magnusson discloses in Fig. 1(a) a zero-contrast grating (dg) (as discussed in para [0085] of the instant Application) comprising:
a sublayer (dh);
wherein the resonant grating layer is immediately adjacent to the sublayer (shown in Fig. 1(a); and
wherein the resonant grating layer has the same refractive index as the sublayer (Abstract; para [0029]).
Magnusson teaches the benefits of using a zero-contrast grating include avoiding local reflections and phase changes (para [0010]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to include the zero-contrast grating of Magnusson in the device of Meyer Timmerman Thijssen so as to improve the reflectance and transmittance.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Meyer Timmerman Thijssen is silent as to, but Magnusson discloses a first band of electromagnetic radiation is transmitted through or reflected by the tunable optical filter, wherein the first band of electromagnetic radiation has >90% transmittance or reflectance and adjacent bands to the first band of electromagnetic radiation have <10% transmittance or reflectance, respectively (para [0032], “the zero-order reflectance R.sub.n exceeds 0.99, or 99%, across a 693-nm bandwidth in the 1409- to 2102-nm wavelength range” and “[a] corresponding low zero-order transmittance band occurs in which zero-order transmittance T.sub.0<0.01: that is less than 1%”; wherein Rn- is considered to be the first band having a reflectance >99%, and the corresponding band having a transmittance <1% is considered to be the adjacent band). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the grating of Magnusson so as to optimize the transmittance and reflectance of the electromagnetic radiation being transmitted.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Meyer Timmerman Thijssen discloses the aperiodic pattern is a one-dimensional or two- dimensional aperiodic pattern (col. 7, lines 17-20, “the grating lines may be made in varying widths and spacings” – wherein one of or both width and spacing can be varied, thus one or two-dimensions).
Regarding claim 6, Meyer Timmerman Thijssen is silent as to, but Magnusson discloses an antireflection coating applied to a surface of the substrate (para [0038]). Magnusson teaches this eliminates unwanted z-direction reflection. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include an anti-reflection coating.
Regarding claim 7, Meyer Timmerman Thijssen discloses the resonant grating layer is formed from Si3N4, TiO2, ZnO, ZnSe, ZnS, Si, Ge, epoxy, or fiberglass (col. 5, lines 60-65).
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Meyer Timmerman Thijssen is silent as to, but Magnusson discloses the sublayer and the waveguide layer are formed from Si3N4, TiO2, ZnO, ZnSe, ZnS, Si, or Ge. (para [0046]; claim 9). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use these materials, as they are readily available in the art with known properties and are commonly used in the construction of optical elements.
Regarding claim 10, Meyer Timmerman Thijssen the substrate is formed from a chalcogenide glass, ZnSe, ZnS, Si, Ge, silica, or quartz (col. 5, lines 51-53).
Regarding claims 14 and 15, Meyer Timmerman Thijssen discloses the inhomogeneous layer has a first thickness gradient along the length (shown in Fig. 4E) of the top surface of the optical filter and a second thickness gradient along the width (would be visible from a plan view, not shown) of the top surface of the optical filter.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARY A EL-SHAMMAA whose telephone number is (571)272-2469. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9am-6pm (flexible schedule).
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.
/MARY A EL-SHAMMAA/Examiner, Art Unit 2874
/THOMAS A HOLLWEG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights