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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08/04/2026 has been entered.
Joint Inventors
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.
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendment filed 08/04/2026 has been considered and entered.
The objection to the specification set forth in the office action received 05/04/2026 is withdrawn in view of the applicant’s amendments.
Response to Arguments
The applicant’s arguments received 08/04/2026 have been fully considered but are moot in view of modified grounds for rejection. Limitations including those relating to the “upper surface of the double grating antenna part” of claim 1 are taught by Popovic (See the 35 USC 103 section of this office action).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-9 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With regards to claim 1, the claim recites "...the downward-recessed portion has a bottom surface coplanar with a bottom surface of the upward-recessed portion...". Examiner understands the recessed portions as being defined by absences of antenna part material within particular regions of the claimed antenna array (Elements 331 and 332 of figure 3 of the instant application). The term “surface” is commonly understood to be defined at an interface. As such, Examiner understands the horizontal interface between elements 330a and 331 to be a bottom surface of the of the downward recessed portion. However, the upward recessed portion does not appear to have a bottom surface as the term is commonly understood. The claim is indefinite because the limitations create confusion regarding the structure of the claimed device.
Claims 2-3, 5-9, and 14 inherit the indefiniteness of claim 1 on which they depend.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20210149227 A1) in view of Popovic (US 10514509 B2).
With regards to claim 1, Lee discloses an optical phase array antenna comprising:
a coupling part (Lee/Fig1/Coupling part 120 [Waveguide]) configured to receive light from a laser generator (Fig1/Laser generator 101 [Light source]);
an optical distributor configured to distribute the light transmitted from the coupling part (Fig1/Optical distributor 130 [Beam splitter]) to a plurality of antenna element waveguides (Fig1/Plurality of antenna element waveguides AT [Antenna]);
a phase modulator configured to modulate a phase of the light transmitted through the plurality of antenna element waveguides (Fig1/Phase modulator 140 [Quantum dot optical amplifier]; Paragraph 21); and
a light outputter configured to output the light modulated by the phase modulator, the light outputter including the plurality of antenna element waveguides extending in one direction (Fig1/Light outputter as outlined below),
PNG
media_image1.png
712
596
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Lee discloses the one direction (Fig1/Direction indicated by Beam Output arrow) but is silent regarding the plurality of antenna element waveguides comprising a double grating antenna part in which a downward-recessed portion recessed downward from an upper surface of the double grating antenna part and an upward-recessed portion recessed upward from a lower surface of the double grating antenna are repeatedly formed in the one direction, the downward-recessed portion has a bottom surface coplanar with a bottom surface of the upward-recessed portion, and in the double grating antenna part, a first length, which is a length of the downward-recessed portion, is greater than a second length, which is a length of the upward- recessed portion, in the one direction. However, the practice of configuring a waveguide to include a double grating with upward and downward recessed portions exists in the art as exemplified by Popovic.
Lee and Popovic are considered to be analogous in the field of optical antenna. Popovic teaches a double grating antenna part in which a double grating antenna part in which a downward-recessed portion recessed downward from an upper surface of the double grating antenna part and an upward-recessed portion recessed upward from a lower surface of the double grating antenna are repeatedly formed in the one direction, and the downward-recessed portion has a bottom surface coplanar with a bottom surface of the upward-recessed portion and in the double grating antenna part, a first length, which is a length of the downward-recessed portion, is greater than a second length, which is a length of the upward- recessed portion, in the one direction (Popovic/Fig13/Downward recessed portion A and upward recessed portion B as indicated below). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include two distinct grating portions in the antenna disclosed by Lee as suggested by Popovic since inclusion of a multiple grating portions would allow for greater control over the output parameters of the light beam.
PNG
media_image2.png
339
600
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With regards to claim 2, Lee and Popovic together disclose the optical phase array antenna of claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of antenna element waveguides further comprises a flat waveguide part, an upper surface and a lower surface of the flat waveguide part are at the same height as an upper surface and a lower surface of the double grating antenna part, respectively, and extend in the one direction, wherein the flat waveguide part and the double grating antenna part are sequentially provided in the one direction (Lee/Fig1/Flat waveguide part visible between elements 140 and AT).
With regards to claim 3, Lee and Popovic together disclose the optical phase array antenna of claim 2, wherein, in the double grating antenna part, a first depth (Popovic/Fig13/First depth [Distance between upper surface of elements 1304 and upper surface of elements 1302]), which is a depth of the downward-recessed portion, is greater than a second depth, which is a depth of the upward-recessed portion, in a vertical direction (Popovic/Fig13/Second depth [Height of elements 1302]).
With regards to claim 5, Lee and Popovic disclose the optical phase array antenna of claim 4, wherein the double grating antenna part comprises an overlapping region in which the upward-recessed portion and the downward-recessed portion overlap to communicate with each other in the vertical direction, wherein the overlapping region comprises a hole (Popovic/Fig13/Overlapping region [Region with width {Λ-(wb+s)}]).
With regards to claim 6, Lee and Popovic together disclose the optical phase array antenna of claim 5, wherein the upward-recessed portion and the downward-recessed portion each have a vertical quadrilateral cross section (Popovic/Fig13).
With regards to claim 7, Lee and Popovic together disclose the optical phase array antenna of claim 1, wherein the upward-recessed portion and the downward-recessed portion are repeatedly formed in pitches within a certain distance in the one direction, wherein the pitch of the upward-recessed portion and the pitch of the downward-recessed portion are the same distance in the one direction (Popovic/Fig13).
With regards to claim 9, Lee and Popovic together disclose the optical phase array antenna of claim 1, wherein, in the double grating antenna part, a lower layer and an upper layer are stacked (Popovic/Fig13/Lower layer [defined by elements 1302] and upper layer [between the upper surface of elements 1302 and upper surface of elements 1304]), and the downward-recessed portion is formed by etching an upper portion of the upper layer, and the upward-recessed portion is formed by etching a lower portion of the lower layer (Popovic/Fig13; Column 11/lines 58-67 and column 12/lines 1-26).
With regards to claim 14, Lee and Popovic together disclose a laser induced detection and ranging (LiDAR) comprising:
a laser generator (Lee/Fig1/Laser generator 101 [Light source]; Paragraph 48/Lines 4-6);
the optical phase array antenna of claim 1;
a light receiver configured to receive light reflected from an object after the light is emitted from the optical phase array antenna (Lee/Fig10/Receiver 1500 [Receiver]); and
a signal processor configured to process a signal received by the light receiver (Lee/Fig10/Signal processor 1700 [Signal processor]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20210149227 A1) and Popovic (US 10514509 B2) as applied to claim 7 above, in further view of Komlijenovic (US 20200217718 A1).
With regards to claim 8, Lee and Popovic together disclose the optical phase array antenna of claim 7, but do not specify whether or not a radiation angle θ of light, which is output through the light outputter, in a forward direction of the light to the vertical direction, an effective refractive index (neff) of a mode, a background refractive index (nbackground), an operating wavelength λ, and pitches Λ of the upward-recessed portion and the downward- curved portion satisfy the equation:
PNG
media_image3.png
112
237
media_image3.png
Greyscale
However, the practice of configuring an optical grating system such that the system can adhere to the above relationship exists in the art as exemplified by Komlijenovic.
Lee, Popovic, and Komlijenovic are considered to be analogous in the field of optical grating arrays. Komlijenovic discloses an optical grating system wherein a radiation angle θ (Komlijenovic/Paragraph 36/Radiation angle θ [Output angle θ]) of light, an effective refractive index (neff) of a mode (Komlijenovic/Paragraph 36/(neff [Effective index of guided mode [neff]), a background refractive index (nbackground) (Komlijenovic/Paragraph 36/Background refractive index nbackground [Refractive index of cladding n1]), an operating wavelength λ (Komlijenovic/Paragraph 36/Operating wavelength λ [Wavelength λ]), and pitches Λ (Komlijenovic/Paragraph 36/Pitch Λ [Pitch Λ]) obey a relationship described by the above equation (Komlijenovic/Paragraph 36/Lines 1-6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the optical phase antenna array disclosed by Lee and Popovic obey the above equation as suggested by Komlijenovic because the constituent terms represent quantities that are inherent to an optical grating.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Marc E Manheim whose telephone number is (703)756-1873. The examiner can normally be reached 6:30am - 5pm E.T., Monday - Tuesday and Thursday - 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 A 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.
/MARC E MANHEIM/Examiner, Art Unit 2874
/THOMAS A HOLLWEG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights