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 .
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 10/29/2025 has been considered and entered.
The rejections under 35 USC 112(b) set forth in the office action received 07/31/2025 is withdrawn in view of the applicant’s amendments.
Response to Arguments
The applicant’s arguments received 10/29/2025 have been fully considered but are moot in view of modified grounds for rejection. Limitations including those relating to the “downward-recessed portions” and “upward-recessed portions” of claim 1 are taught by Xiao (See the 35 USC 103 section of this office action).
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The specification relies on the terms “downward-curved portion” and “upward-curved portion” to respectively describe elements 331 and 332. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-7, 9, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20210149227 A1) in view of Xiao (CN 112230339 A).
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 and an upward-recessed portion recessed upward from a lower surface 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. 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 Xiao.
Lee and Xiao are considered to be analogous in the field of optical antenna. Xiao 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 and an upward-recessed portion recessed upward from a lower surface 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 (Xiao/Fig7/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 Xiao since inclusion of a multiple grating portions would allow for greater control over the output parameters of the light beams.
PNG
media_image2.png
175
396
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With regards to claim 2, Lee and Xiao 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 Xiao together disclose the optical phase array antenna of claim 2, wherein, in the double grating antenna part, a first depth (Xiao/Fig7/Depth of element A), 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 (Xiao/Fig7/Depth of element B).
With regards to claim 4, Lee and Xiao together disclose the optical phase array antenna of claim 3, wherein, in the double grating antenna part, a first length (Xiao/Fig7/Length of element A) which is a length of the downward-recessed portion, and a second length (Xiao/Fig7/Length of element B), which is a length of the upward-recessed portion, in the one direction. Xiao is silent regarding the first length being greater than the second length. However, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the lengths of the recessed portions of array antenna of Lee and Xiao such that the first length is greater than the second length since doing so would facilitate the routing of light emergent from the grating in a desired direction.
With regards to claim 5, Lee and Xiao 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 (Xiao/Fig7/Interface between elements A and B).
With regards to claim 6, Lee and Xiao 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 (Xiao/Fig7).
With regards to claim 7, Lee and Xiao 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 (Xiao/Fig7).
With regards to claim 9, Lee and Xiao 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 (Xiao/Fig1/Lower layer 30 and upper layer defined by element 40), 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 (Xiao/Figs2-6).
With regards to claim 14, Lee and Xiao 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 Xiao (CN 112230339 A) as applied to claim 7 above, in further view of Komlijenovic (US 20200217718 A1).
With regards to claim 8, Lee and Xiao 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, Xiao, 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 Xiao obey the above equation as suggested by Komlijenovic because the constituent terms represent quantities that are inherent to an optical grating.
Conclusion
This prior art, made of record, but not relied upon, is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure since the following references have similar structure and/or use similar structure and/or similar optical elements to what is disclosed and/or claimed in the instant application:
Kuo (US 20200003956 A1) [Fig2b]
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
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