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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-14 in the reply filed on 07/09/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 15-22 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a system” in claim 1 and “systems” in claim 9.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. As noticed in paragraph 0012-0013, the optical guiding system comprises a surface optical coupler, adapted to capturing the laser; the optical guiding system comprises a first waveguide for the laser and second waveguides for the laser. As noticed in paragraph 0082, device102 may comprise a ring- shaped resistive track placed in front of ring 52.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 should start with “A”.
Claim 1, line 2, the limitation “a region absorbing for the laser” should read “a laser absorbing region” or “a region absorbing a laser”.
Claims 2-14 should start with “The”.
Claim 4, lines 1-2, the limitation “optical guiding system-comprises” should read “optical guiding system comprises”.
Claim 10, the limitation “further comprising a photonic crystal each object and one of the second waveguides” should read “further comprising a photonic crystal between each object and one of the second waveguides”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-14 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the laser" in line 2, and “said absorbing regions” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2 and 3 recite the limitation "the optical guiding system" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 4-11 and 13 are rejected due to their dependency from claim 1.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the thickness" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the absorption" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-5, 7, 8 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Koch (US 2014/0254978).
Regarding claim 1, Koch teaches a device (600; Fig. 6) configured for a laser treatment (para. 0037-0038), comprising a support (602) and objects (610, 620, 630), each attached to the support via a region (614, 624, 634) absorbing for the laser (as shown in Fig. 6; para. 0035-0038), the support comprising a system (651, 652, 653) for optically guiding the laser towards at least a plurality of said absorbing regions (para. 0035).
Regarding claim 2, Koch teaches the device according to claim 1, wherein the optical guiding system comprises a surface optical coupler, adapted to capturing the laser (para. 0016).
Regarding claim 3, Koch teaches the device according to claim 1, wherein the optical guiding system comprises a first waveguide (any of 651, 652, 653) for the laser and second waveguides (any of 651, 652, 653, different from the first waveguide) for the laser, each second waveguide extending in front of one of the absorbing regions and being coupled to the first waveguide by an optical waveguide coupler (as shown in Fig. 6; para. 0016).
Regarding claim 4, Koch teaches the device according to claim 3, wherein the optical guiding system comprises a surface optical coupler (para. 0016), adapted to capturing the laser, wherein the surface optical coupler is coupled to an end of the first waveguide (para. 0016).
Regarding claim 5, Koch teaches the device according to claim 3, wherein each optical waveguide coupler is a multimode interference coupler or an evanescent wave optical coupler (para. 0016).
Regarding claim 7, Koch teaches the device according to claim 3, wherein the optical waveguide couplers comprise at least first optical couplers configured to perform a coupling of a laser radiation at a first wavelength and not to perform a coupling of a laser radiation at a second wavelength different from the first wavelength and second optical couplers configured to perform a coupling of the laser radiation at the second wavelength and not to perform a coupling of a laser radiation at the first wavelength (a multimode interference coupler is capable of working as claimed due to their wavelength dependent reflection properties; para. 0016).
Regarding claim 8, Koch teaches the device according to claim 3, wherein a plurality of the optical waveguide couplers each have a coefficient of coupling with the first waveguide which depends on temperature (all optical waveguide couplers have a coefficient of coupling with the first waveguide which depends on temperature because temperature changes affect material’s refractive index which alters the interference and coupling behavior of the light waves; para. 0016).
Regarding claim 13, Koch teaches the device according to claim 1, wherein each object comprises an electronic circuit (para. 0035; inherently present in a laser, modulator or photodetector).
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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koch in view of Zhao (US 2020/0280172).
Regarding claim 6, Koch teaches all the elements of the claimed invention as set forth above in claim 3, except for, wherein each optical waveguide coupler comprises a ring microresonator.
Zhao teaches an optical waveguide coupler (23) comprising a ring microresonator (para. 0046).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the optical waveguide coupler of Koch, with Zhao, by providing a ring microresonator as the optical waveguide coupler, to reduce system complexity and improve performance/efficiency. POSITA would have known that providing a ring microresonator as the optical waveguide coupler would have a reasonable expectation of success and predictable results such as reduce system complexity and improve performance/efficiency.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koch in view of Krishnamoorthy (US 9,778,493).
Regarding claim 9, Koch teaches all the elements of the claimed invention as set forth above in claim 8, except for, further comprising systems for heating said plurality of optical waveguide couplers.
Krishnamoorthy teaches a system (Fig. 5A) comprising a system (519) for heating an optical waveguide coupler (518) (as shown in Fig. 5A).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Koch, with Krishnamoorthy, by providing systems for heating said plurality of optical waveguide couplers, to actively control and tune its optical properties. POSITA would have known that providing systems for heating said plurality of optical waveguide couplers would have a reasonable expectation of success and predictable results such as actively control and tune its optical properties.
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koch in view of Ikuta (US 2010/0220763).
Regarding claim 10, Koch teaches all the elements of the claimed invention as set forth above in claim 3, except for, further comprising a photonic crystal between each object and one of the second waveguides.
Ikuta teaches a photonic crystal (125 and 120, 210 and 320, 625 and 620) between an object (101, 201, 601) and a waveguide (para. 0042; 0046-0047; 0070).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Koch, with Ikuta, by providing a photonic crystal between each object and one of the second waveguides, to improve efficiency by precise control over light. POSITA would have known that providing a photonic crystal between each object and one of the second waveguides would have a reasonable expectation of success and predictable results such as improving efficiency by precise control over light.
Regarding claim 11, Koch and Ikuta combined teach the device according to claim 10, wherein the photonic crystal is a two-dimensional photonic crystal (Ikuta; para. 00067; 0117; 0148).
Regarding claim 12, Koch and Ikuta combined teach the device according to claim 10, wherein the photonic crystal comprises a base layer (Ikuta; 120, 320, 620) of a first material (Ikuta; para. 0114) and a grating of pillars (Ikuta; 125, 210, 625; para. 0117) of a second material different from the first material (Ikuta; para. 0117), each pillar extending in the base layer across at least a portion of the thickness of the base layer (Ikuta; as shown in Fig. 1, 3 and 6).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koch.
Regarding claim 14, Koch teaches all the elements of the claimed invention as set forth above, except for, wherein the absorption of the region absorbing for the laser is greater than 60%.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to provide the claimed absorption range, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 10,234,644, US 2019/0058306 and US 8,213,751.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALBA T ROSARIO-APONTE whose telephone number is (571)272-9325. The examiner can normally be reached M to F; 8am-5pm.
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, Steven Crabb can be reached at 571-270-5095. 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.
/ALBA T ROSARIO-APONTE/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 10/16/2025
/STEVEN W CRABB/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761