DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/12/2026 has been entered.
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 .
Inventorship
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 Amendment
Applicant's Amendment filed1/12/2026 has been fully considered and entered.
The objections to the claims, which were set forth in the Office action mailed 10/20/2025, have been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s Amendment. However, a new objection is placed forth.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Page 7: Applicant argues that Park and Sun do not disclose the claimed intermediate-waveguide core refractive index.
The examiner disagrees. The combination of 101, 102, and 103, for example, provide core materials surrounded by a cladding material 107 and on a substrate 105 and/or 104. See the rejection below for a more in-depth explanation.
Page 7: Applicant argues in section A that substrate 105 cannot be interpreted as the first element if the first element is already interpreted as the common substrate.
The examiner agrees that 105 cannot be both the first element and the substrate. However, 105 is a common substrate for elements such as 101, 102, 103, 104, and/or 107, so any of these may be interpreted as first, second, or third elements assuming they meet the remaining claim limitations. In the case of the first element, a better interpretation is 101. See the rejection below as well as the annotated Fig. 1.
Page 8: Applicant argues in section B that Park fails to specifically disclose lithium or niobium in connection with the alleged second element, thus failing to disclose the full set of recited second element materials as claimed.
The examiner disagrees that Park is required to list all possible elements of a set. A recitation of any one element is sufficient for a rejection since the claim language specifies “at least one of” before the list. See MPEP 2111.03.
Page 8: Applicant argues in section C that Park's materials for the intermediate-waveguide refractive index are directed only to the cladding and not to the core.
The examiner agrees that 107 is a cladding material, but disagrees that 107 is the only interpretation of the intermediate refractive index. The examiner notes that 102 is a better interpretation but does not explicitly teach particular refractive indices. Park however does suggest some refractive indices meeting the claim. See the rejection below.
Page 9: Applicant argues in section D that Park and Sun are not combinable.
In response to applicant's argument, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Park explains that the coupling technique is useful for increasing light efficiency in devices requiring light transfer between elements.
In response to applicant's argument, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Page 11: Applicant argues in section 2 that Park and Sun do not teach or suggest a "tapped source monitor" photodetector.
The examiner disagrees. Sun teaches an interpreted “tapped source monitor” photodetector in Fig. 6 where laser 622 provides light to photodetector 662 and emitter array provides light to monitor photodetector 636. That is, one photodetector is monitoring the light source and the other is monitoring the emitted light.
Page 11: Applicant argues in section 3 that Park and Sun only teach one photodetector and not the required two.
The examiner disagrees. Park is relied upon for improved coupling techniques while Sun is relied upon for structure relating to the overall device function as an obvious combination. This means that Park is unlikely to disclose features such as a “tapped source monitor” photodetector whereas Park is likely to contain such features. In the present instance, the examiner notes that the claim require two distinct photodetectors that receive light from distinct elements, particularly from the optical source and from the emitter structures. Sun teaches this in Fig. 6 where laser 622 provides light to photodetector 662 and emitter array provides light to monitor photodetector 636.
Page 11: Applicant argues in section 4 that there is no reasoning to add both photodetectors.
The examiner disagrees. The structure of Park teaches the improved coupling technique and the structure of Sun teaches that the overall device layout as claimed was already known. No additional teaching is required to “add” in another photodetector since multiple photodetectors already exist in Sun. See the rejection below.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 13: “wherein intermediate waveguide structure core is characterized” should instead state “wherein an intermediate waveguide structure core is characterized”. This change is adopted below.
Claim 1, line 16-19: “wherein at least one of the first elements further comprises a first photodetector configured to receive a part of the light originating from the optical source, and a second photodetector configured to receive a part of the light reflected from at least one of the emitter structures” occurs before “emitter structures” has been introduced. It is recommended to move this limitation after line 23 rather than changing the language. This change is adopted below.
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.
Claim 2 is 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 2 requires “at least one of the first elements further comprises at least one photodetector”. This is conflicted with Claim 1, which requires “at least one of the first elements further comprises a first photodetector…and a second photodetector”. Since there are already two photodectors (first and second) in the device of claim 1, it is impossible to have one (at least one) as recited in claim 2. Applicant’s disclosure discloses “one or more” but only two photodetectors are shown in Figures 1-3b for the first element. Accordingly, for purpose of examination, the examiner is interpreting that the “at least one photodetector” recited in claim 2 is one of the photodetectors recited in claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7, 9-13, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in US 20200233149 A1 (hereinafter "Park") in view of Sun et al. in US 20180188452 A1 (hereinafter "Sun").
Regarding claims 1-5 and 7, Park discloses a device comprising:
at least one of each of first, second and third elements fabricated on a common substrate (see claim 1 and Fig. 1 where more than three interpreted “elements” 104, 102, 107, 103, 106, and 101 are all on substrate 105; note Annotated Fig. 1 below);
wherein at least one of the first elements comprises an active waveguide structure supporting an active optical mode, at least one of the second elements comprises a passive waveguide structure supporting a passive optical mode, and at least one of the third elements, at least partly butt-coupled to at least one of the first elements, comprises an intermediate waveguide structure supporting intermediate optical modes (see claim 1);
PNG
media_image1.png
446
936
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the first elements comprise at least one of Indium (In), Phosphorus (P), Gallium (Ga), Arsenic (As), and Antimony (Sb) (substrate 101 is interpreted as the first element; see Para. 27 where Indium, Phosphorus, Gallium, Arsenic, and Antimony are explicitly disclosed);
wherein the second elements comprise at least one of Nitrogen (N), Titanium (Ti), Tantalum (Ta), Oxygen (O), Lithium (Li), and Niobium (Nb) (substrate 102 is interpreted as the second element; see Para. 26 where nitrogen, titanium, tantalum, and oxygen are explicitly disclosed), and where second elements are characterized by a bandgap greater than 1.2 eV (Para. 26 explicitly discloses SiN, AlN, and SiO2 as material choices for layer 102 and Para. 5 explicitly discloses SiN, AlN, and SiO2 have bandgaps above 1.2 eV, thus choosing these materials provided in Para. 26 will necessarily result in bandgaps above 1.2 eV regardless of whether or not Park explicitly characterized the bandgaps of layer 102 since bandgaps are inherent properties of their materials);
wherein a tapered structure in at least one of the second and third elements facilitates efficient adiabatic transformation between the passive optical mode and at least one of the intermediate optical modes (see claim 1);
wherein no adiabatic transformation occurs between any of the intermediate optical modes and the active optical mode (see claim 1); and
wherein mutual alignments of the first, second and third elements are defined using lithographic alignment marks that facilitate alignment between layers formed during processing steps of fabrication the first, the second and the third elements on a common substrate (see claim 1).
Park fails to explicitly disclose:
wherein an intermediate waveguide structure core is characterized by a refractive index between 1.44 and 2.2. However, Park discloses that core material of the intermediate waveguide structure must have a refractive index higher than the overlying cladding (see claim 3). Further, Park teaches that the intermediate layer 103 allows for efficient transfer between high refractive index materials such as layer 101 to low refractive index materials such as layer 103. Common sense would have been to pick an intermediate waveguide structure core that is between the refractive indices of layers 101 and 102 to provide the most efficient transfer of light between layers. Para. 30 identifies that layer 101 can be materials such as GaAs and layer 102 can be materials such as SiN or SiO2. Para. 5 discloses that the refractive index of GaAs is greater than 3, that the refractive index of SiO2 is about 1.44, and that the refractive index of SiN is about 2. This necessarily implies that the refractive index of the intermediate waveguide structure core (i.e., layer 103) would ideally have a refractive index between about 1.44 and less than about 3 or a refractive index between about 2 and less than about 3 in these examples. Both of these exemplary ranges determined from the suggested materials have some crossover with the claimed range, with one of the ranges even roughly sharing the same low value refractive index. Since a person having ordinary skill in the art would have desired a smooth light transition with as little loss as possible (similar to gradient refractive index materials), they would have found it obvious before the time of filing to try to optimize Park’s device, especially since Park disclosed in Para. 30 that “[t]he refractive index of layer 103 can be engineered to facilitate efficient coupling of mode profile 151 and to efficiently transform the mode to one with mode profile 155", and 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, since 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), and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Park further fails to explicitly disclose a device:
wherein at least one of the first elements comprises an optical source (note that Para. 27 identifies that layer 101 makes up what is commonly called an active region; Para. 28 identifies that layer 101 can generate optical emission which necessarily describes an optical source; Para. 47 suggests that light sources such as lasers can be created by persons having ordinary skill in the art);
wherein at least one of the second elements comprises at least one splitter structure (note that Para. 28 discloses that splitting is an additional achievable functionality) and at least one of the second elements comprises at least two emitter structures; and
wherein at least one of the first elements further comprises a first photodetector configured to receive a part of the light originating from the optical source, and a second photodetector configured to receive a part of the light reflected from at least one of the emitter structures.
Sun teaches a device:
wherein at least one first element comprising an optical source (laser 622 is interpreted as at least one of the first elements comprising a light source; see Fig. 6) (claim 1); and
wherein at least one of the second elements comprises at least one splitter structure (demux 630 is interpreted as at least one of the second elements comprising a splitter structure; see Para. 40) and at least one of the second elements comprises at least two emitter structures (emitter array 634 comprises multiple emitter portions which are interpreted as emitter structures; see Para. 41 and Fig. 6) (claim 1);
wherein at least one of the first elements further comprises a first photodetector configured to receive a part of the light originating from the optical source (photodetector 662 is interpreted as one of the first elements since it receives light from the laser 622 via the coupler 626, and thus is also interpreted as being configured to receive a part of the light originating from the optical source; see Fig. 6), and a second photodetector configured to receive a part of the light reflected from at least one of the emitter structures (monitor photodetector 636 is interpreted as the second photodetector since it is configured to receive a part of the light from at least one of the emitter structures in the emitter array 634; see Fig. 6) (claim 1);
wherein at least one of the second elements further comprises at least one tap coupler (coupler 626 is interpreted as a second element comprising a tap coupler since it taps a portion of light to send to photodetector 662; see Para. 40 and Fig. 6) (claim 2);
wherein the emitter structures are defined as periodic structures (the emitters within a subarray can be periodic; see Para. 25 and 41) (claim 3);
wherein the optical source is wavelength stabilized (lasers are necessarily designed to emit a particular wavelength or wavelength range with some amount of stability and are thus interpreted as wavelength stabilized optical sources) (claims 4);
wherein at least one of the first elements comprises at least one semiconductor optical amplifier (SOA 628 is a semiconductor optical amplifier; see Fig. 6) (claim 5); and
wherein at least one emitter structure in at least one of the second elements is configured to receive incident light and couple it to at least one photodetector in at least one of the first elements (the emitter array 634 receives reflected incident light and that light can be coupled into photodetector 662; see Fig. 6) (claim 7).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the optical coupling of Park in the device of Sun for the purpose of providing a LIDAR device with improved optical coupling between layers and/or elements thereby achieving a better-functioning device with less optical loss due to significant differences in refractive indices along the guided light path.
Park/Sun fails to disclose:
wherein the first element active waveguide structure is defined by at least one etch after attachment to the common substrate (note that Para. 27 discloses that 102 and 104 which together form a cladding, but does not disclose that this occurs after attachment to the common substrate).
The examiner notes that applicant is claiming the product (device) including the process of making the product (etching the waveguide structure after attachment), and therefor claim 1 is of "product-by-process" nature. The courts have been holding for quite some time that: the determination of the patentability of a product-by-process claim is based on the product itself rather than on the process by which the product is made. In re Thrope, 777 F. 2d 695, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985); and that patentability of claim to a product does not rest merely on a difference in the method by which that product is made. Rather, it is the product itself which must be new and unobvious. Applicant has chosen to claim the invention in the product form. When the prior art discloses a product which reasonably appears to be either identical with or only slightly different than a product claimed in a product-by-process claim, a rejection based alternatively on either on 35 U.S.C. section 102 or alternatively on 35 U.S.C. section 103 of the statute is eminently fair and acceptable. In re Brown, 459 F.2d 531, 535, 173 USPQ 685 and 688 (CCPA 1972). See MPEP §2113.
Regarding claims 9-13 and 15, Park discloses a device comprising:
at least one of each of first, second and third elements fabricated on a common substrate (see claim 1 and Fig. 1 where more than three interpreted “elements” 104, 102, 107, 103, 106, and 101 are all on substrate 105; note Annotated Fig. 1 below);
wherein at least one of the first elements comprises an active waveguide structure supporting an active optical mode, at least one of the second elements comprises a passive waveguide structure supporting a passive optical mode, and at least one of the third elements, at least partly butt-coupled to at least one of the first elements, comprises an intermediate waveguide structure supporting intermediate optical modes (see claim 1);
PNG
media_image1.png
446
936
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the first elements comprise at least one of Indium (In), Phosphorus (P), Gallium (Ga), Arsenic (As), and Antimony (Sb) (substrate 101 is interpreted as the first element; see Para. 27 where Indium, Phosphorus, Gallium, Arsenic, and Antimony are explicitly disclosed);
wherein the second elements comprise at least one of Nitrogen (N), Titanium (Ti), Tantalum (Ta), Oxygen (O), Lithium (Li), and Niobium (Nb) (substrate 102 is interpreted as the second element; see Para. 26 where nitrogen, titanium, tantalum, and oxygen are explicitly disclosed), and where second elements are characterized by a bandgap greater than 1.2 eV (Para. 26 explicitly discloses SiN, AlN, and SiO2 as material choices for layer 102 and Para. 5 explicitly discloses SiN, AlN, and SiO2 have bandgaps above 1.2 eV, thus choosing these materials provided in Para. 26 will necessarily result in bandgaps above 1.2 eV regardless of whether or not Park explicitly characterized the bandgaps of layer 102 since bandgaps are inherent properties of their materials);
wherein a tapered structure in at least one of the second and third elements facilitates efficient adiabatic transformation between the passive optical mode and at least one of the intermediate optical modes (see claim 1);
wherein no adiabatic transformation occurs between any of the intermediate optical modes and the active optical mode (see claim 1); and
wherein mutual alignments of the first, second and third elements are defined using lithographic alignment marks that facilitate alignment between layers formed during processing steps of fabrication the first, the second and the third elements on a common substrate (see claim 1).
Park fails to explicitly disclose:
wherein an intermediate waveguide structure core is characterized by a refractive index between 1.44 and 2.2. However, Park discloses that core material of the intermediate waveguide structure must have a refractive index higher than the overlying cladding (see claim 3). Further, Park teaches that the intermediate layer 103 allows for efficient transfer between high refractive index materials such as layer 101 to low refractive index materials such as layer 103. Common sense would have been to pick an intermediate waveguide structure core that is between the refractive indices of layers 101 and 102 to provide the most efficient transfer of light between layers. Para. 30 identifies that layer 101 can be materials such as GaAs and layer 102 can be materials such as SiN or SiO2. Para. 5 discloses that the refractive index of GaAs is greater than 3, that the refractive index of SiO2 is about 1.44, and that the refractive index of SiN is about 2. This necessarily implies that the refractive index of the intermediate waveguide structure core (i.e., layer 103) would ideally have a refractive index between about 1.44 and less than about 3 or a refractive index between about 2 and less than about 3 in these examples. Both of these exemplary ranges determined from the suggested materials have some crossover with the claimed range, with one of the ranges even roughly sharing the same low value refractive index. Since a person having ordinary skill in the art would have desired a smooth light transition with as little loss as possible (similar to gradient refractive index materials), they would have found it obvious before the time of filing to try to optimize Park’s device, especially since Park disclosed in Para. 30 that “[t]he refractive index of layer 103 can be engineered to facilitate efficient coupling of mode profile 151 and to efficiently transform the mode to one with mode profile 155", and 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, since 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), and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Park further fails to explicitly disclose a device:
wherein at least one of the first elements comprises an optical source (note that Para. 27 identifies that layer 101 makes up what is commonly called an active region; Para. 28 identifies that layer 101 can generate optical emission which necessarily describes an optical source; Para. 47 suggests that light sources such as lasers can be created by persons having ordinary skill in the art);
wherein at least one of the first elements further comprises a first photodetector configured to receive a part of the light originating from the optical source, and a second photodetector configured to receive a part of the light reflected from at least one of the emitter structures; and
wherein at least one of the second elements comprises at least two in-line emitter structures.
Sun teaches a device:
wherein at least one first element comprising an optical source (laser 622 is interpreted as at least one of the first elements comprising a light source; see Fig. 6) (claim 9); and
wherein at least one of the second elements comprises at least two in-line emitter structures (emitter array 634 comprises multiple subarrays, each with multiple in-line emitter portions; see Para. 41; see Fig. 6 and Fig. 8 where a grating coupler is interpreted as having multiple (two or more) in-line emitters) (claim 9);
wherein at least one of the first elements further comprises a first photodetector configured to receive a part of the light originating from the optical source (photodetector 662 is interpreted as one of the first elements since it receives light from the laser 622 via the coupler 626, and thus is also interpreted as being configured to receive a part of the light originating from the optical source; see Fig. 6), and a second photodetector configured to receive a part of the light reflected from at least one of the emitter structures (monitor photodetector 636 is interpreted as the second photodetector since it is configured to receive a part of the light from at least one of the emitter structures in the emitter array 634; see Fig. 6) (claim 9);
wherein at least one of the second elements further comprises at least one tap coupler (coupler 626 is interpreted as a second element comprising a tap coupler since it taps a portion of light to send to photodetector 662; see Para. 40 and Fig. 6) (claim 10);
wherein the emitter structures are defined as periodic structures (the emitters within a subarray can be periodic; see Para. 25 and 41) (claim 11);
wherein the optical source is wavelength stabilized (lasers are necessarily designed to emit a particular wavelength or wavelength range with some amount of stability and are thus interpreted as wavelength stabilized optical sources) (claims 12);
wherein at least one of the first elements comprises at least one semiconductor optical amplifier (SOA 628 is a semiconductor optical amplifier; see Fig. 6) (claim 13); and
wherein at least one emitter structure in at least one of the second elements is configured to receive incident light and couple it to at least one photodetector in at least one of the first elements (the emitter array 634 receives reflected incident light and that light can be coupled into photodetector 662; see Fig. 6) (claim 15).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the optical coupling of Park in the device of Sun for the purpose of providing a LIDAR device with improved optical coupling between layers and/or elements thereby achieving a better-functioning device with less optical loss due to significant differences in refractive indices along the guided light path.
Park/Sun fails to disclose:
wherein the first element active waveguide structure is defined by at least one etch after attachment to the common substrate (note that Para. 27 discloses that 102 and 104 which together form a cladding, but does not disclose that this occurs after attachment to the common substrate).
The examiner notes that applicant is claiming the product (device) including the process of making the product (etching the waveguide structure after attachment), and therefor claim 1 is of "product-by-process" nature. The courts have been holding for quite some time that: the determination of the patentability of a product-by-process claim is based on the product itself rather than on the process by which the product is made. In re Thrope, 777 F. 2d 695, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985); and that patentability of claim to a product does not rest merely on a difference in the method by which that product is made. Rather, it is the product itself which must be new and unobvious. Applicant has chosen to claim the invention in the product form. When the prior art discloses a product which reasonably appears to be either identical with or only slightly different than a product claimed in a product-by-process claim, a rejection based alternatively on either on 35 U.S.C. section 102 or alternatively on 35 U.S.C. section 103 of the statute is eminently fair and acceptable. In re Brown, 459 F.2d 531, 535, 173 USPQ 685 and 688 (CCPA 1972). See MPEP §2113.
Claim(s) 6 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in US 20200233149 A1 (hereinafter "Park") in view of Sun et al. in US 20180188452 A1 (hereinafter "Sun") as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Aquino Maier et al. in US Patent 11,422,239 B2 (hereinafter "Aquino Maier").
Regarding claims 6 and 14, Park/Sun discloses the device of claim 1 as discussed above, but fails to teach that at least two emitter structures are optically coupled to at least two lenses.
Aquino Maier teaches the optical coupling of a separate lens for each optical element (see Fig. 2A).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the lens of Maier in the device of Sarkissian for the purpose of allowing light to be focused in a desirable manner.
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:
US 20160327742 A1 discloses similar coupling arrangement with an intermediate waveguide with a refractive index of 1.55.
US 20050152649 A1 discloses a similar intermediate waveguide.
US 10641959 B1 discloses a similar coupling arrangement.
US 20130322813 A1discloses a similar coupling arrangement.
US 20180231714 A1discloses a similar coupling arrangement.
US 11163115 B1 discloses a similar coupling arrangement.
US 20040105644 A1 discloses an intermediate refractive index.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARBY M THOMASON whose telephone number is (703)756-5817. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 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, Uyen-Chau Le can be reached on (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.
/DARBY M. THOMASON/Examiner, Art Unit 2874
/UYEN CHAU N LE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874