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 Amendment
This action is responsive to the preliminary amendment received April 26, 2023. Claims 5, 7, 8, 13, 15, 16, and 18-20 have been amended. No claims are newly added or canceled. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on April 26, 2023, October 28, 2024, and March 10, 2025 are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because every line, number and letter is not durable, clean, sufficiently dark and dense and uniformly thick and well defined. The weight of all lines and letters is not durable enough to permit adequate reproduction, see 37 CFR 1.84(l). Each figure 1-12 appears to be deficient.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as amended. If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either Replacement Sheet or New Sheet pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-8, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
The claim(s) recite(s):
determining, according to a refractive index of a material from which the waveguide core is made and a refractive index of a material from which a base layer is made, a critical angle of total reflection at an interface between the waveguide core and the base layer; and
determining the parameters of the waveguide core according to a relative positional relationship between one end port of the waveguide core and the other end port of the waveguide core in the optical-electronic printed circuit board, a condition of a region through which the waveguide core passes, and the critical angle, so that an incident angle of light transmitted through the first waveguide segment and impinging on the third sidewall of the waveguide core is not less than the critical angle, and an incident angle of light impinging on the fourth sidewall of the waveguide core is not less than the critical angle, wherein the parameters of the waveguide core comprise the number of the third sidewalls, the number of the fourth sidewalls, an angle of rotation of each fourth sidewall with respect to a previous sidewall connected thereto, and an angle of rotation of each third sidewall with respect to a previous sidewall connected thereto.
The analysis for subject matter eligibility follows several steps that are detailed in MPEP 2106, with flow charts in MPEP 2106, subsection III and 2106.04, subsection II A.
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes. Claims 1-8 are directed to a method for determining parameters which is a process.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea?
Yes, see the bolded portions of claim 1 above. The claims are directed to an abstract idea. The method of determining a critical angle and determining the number of sidewalls, and angles of rotation between sidewalls are mental processes and involve nothing more than observation and simple evaluation. The critical angle is necessarily dependent upon the refractive index values at the material boundaries as governed by Snell’s Law, which is a law of nature.
Step 2A, Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no additional elements or steps done beyond the determining.
Step, 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
The claim(s) does/do not include any additional elements and therefore no additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 2-8, 19 and 20 simply further define what is being observed or generally executing the method of claim 1, and there are no further elements, steps, or significantly more than the initial determining of claim 1. As such, claims 2-8, 19 and 20 are patent illegible for the same reasons as claim 1.
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 1-20 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 respect to claims 1 and 9, the limitations “at least one third sidewall,” “at least one fourth sidewall,” “one third sidewall,” “one fourth sidewall,” “the fourth sidewall” and “the third sidewall” render the claims indefinite because the metes and bounds of the claims cannot be determined. It is unclear how many sidewalls are required in the claim as “at least one” opens the door to a plurality of third and fourth sidewalls, but then it is unclear which sidewall when referring to “the third sidewall” or “the fourth sidewall” is being referenced. Further, the third sidewalls are required to intersect the first sidewall, and the fourth sidewalls are required to intersect the second sidewall. How does this work if there are plural third or fourth sidewalls? For purposes of this office action, the claims are interpreted as requiring simply one third sidewall and one fourth sidewall. Claims 2-8 and 10-20 are identically rejected as they inherit these limitations and fail to remedy the deficiency.
With respect to claims 2 and 10, the limitations related to A3 render the claims indefinite because the metes and bounds of the claims cannot be determined as A3 is the angle of rotation of other fourth sidewalls, but these are not a required elements of the claims as merely “at least one fourth sidewall” is required. If there are not a plurality of fourth sidewalls, it’s unclear how to evaluate A1
≤
A3
≤
2A1. Claims 3-7, 11 and 12 are identically rejected as they inherit these limitations and fail to remedy the deficiency. For purposes of this office action, the examiner interprets the claims without the A3 limitations.
With respect to claims 3, 4, 11 and 12, the limitations requiring a plurality of third sidewalls and a plurality of fourth sidewalls render the claims indefinite as the metes and bounds cannot be determined as it is unclear how multiple third sidewalls can be connected to the first sidewall, and how their angles of rotations with respect to the first sidewall would be calculated. For purposes of this office action, only one third sidewall and one fourth sidewall are interpreted as being required.
With respect to claims 5-7, and 13-15, the limitations requiring a plurality of first waveguide segments and second waveguide segments, and the third waveguide segments render the claims indefinite as the metes and bounds of the claims cannot be determined. In independent claims 1 and 9, the first waveguide segment includes the first and second sidewalls, the second waveguide segment includes the third and fourth sidewalls, and the first, second, and the third and fourth sidewalls intersect each other. How could there be multiple first segments? Second segments? How could there be third segments between the first and second segments if they’re already required to intersect? The claims contradict what has already been claimed and the examiner cannot determine how to interpret the claims in a way that makes sense. These claims are so unclear the examiner cannot interpret them to apply a prior art rejection.
With respect to claim 8, the limitations describing “the condition” being at least one of a via hole, an electronic component or a wire exists in the region through which the waveguide core passes are indefinite because the metes and bounds cannot be determined. What does it mean the condition is a via hole? Or a component? Or a condition that a wire exists in the region through which the waveguide core passes? What is meant by condition? The examiner cannot determine what is intended. This claim is so unclear the examiner cannot interpret it to apply a prior art rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 9-12, and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Liu et al. (US Patent 11,609,379, hereinafter referred to as “Liu”). Liu anticipates claims:
1 and 9. A method for determining parameters of a waveguide core (and the waveguide core itself of claim 9 - waveguide core region 14 is interpreted as the waveguide core) in an optical-electronic printed circuit board, wherein the waveguide core comprises a plurality of sidewalls which define a first waveguide segment (section 30 is interpreted as the first waveguide segment) and a second waveguide segment (section 28 is interpreted as the second waveguide segment) connected to the first waveguide segment (see figure 1);
the plurality of sidewalls comprise a first sidewall (the left side sidewall of section 30 is interpreted as the first sidewall, see figure 1) and a second sidewall (the right side sidewall of section 30 is interpreted as the second sidewall) disposed opposed to each other in the first waveguide segment (see figure 1), and the first sidewall is parallel to the second sidewall (see figure 1 which shows the width W3 for the portion);
the plurality of sidewalls further comprise at least one third sidewall (the sidewall of section 28 connected to the first sidewall is interpreted as the third sidewall) and at least one fourth sidewall (the sidewall of section 28 connected to the second sidewall is interpreted as the fourth sidewall) in the second waveguide segment, the first sidewall is adjacent to and intersects one third sidewall, the second sidewall is adjacent to and intersects one fourth sidewall, the first sidewall and the third sidewall are located on a same side, and the second sidewall and the fourth sidewall are located on a same side (see figure 1), and the method comprises: determining, according to a refractive index of a material from which the waveguide core is made and a refractive index of a material from which a base layer is made, a critical angle of total reflection at an interface between the waveguide core and the base layer (this is determined by Snell’s Law); and
determining the parameters of the waveguide core according to a relative positional relationship between one end port of the waveguide core and the other end port of the waveguide core in the optical-electronic printed circuit board, a condition of a region through which the waveguide core passes, and the critical angle, so that an incident angle of light transmitted through the first waveguide segment and impinging on the third sidewall of the waveguide core is not less than the critical angle, and an incident angle of light impinging on the fourth sidewall of the waveguide core is not less than the critical angle (this occurs because light passes through the device which functions as a waveguide), wherein the parameters of the waveguide core comprise the number of the third sidewalls (one third sidewall, it is so determined), the number of the fourth sidewalls (one, it is so determined), an angle of rotation of each fourth sidewall with respect to a previous sidewall connected thereto, and an angle of rotation of each third sidewall with respect to a previous sidewall connected thereto (see figure 1, all these are determined by their existence as a physical structure).
2 and 10: The method according to claim 1, wherein the first sidewall is parallel to the second sidewall, the second waveguide segment comprises at least one third sidewall and at least one fourth sidewall which satisfy:
0 < Al < (90degrees – alpha)
A2 > Al;
where Al is an angle of rotation of the fourth sidewall intersecting the second sidewall with respect to the second sidewall; A2 is an angle of rotation of the third sidewall intersecting the first sidewall with respect to the first sidewall; and alpha is a critical angle of total reflection of light at the interface between the waveguide core and the base layer (see figure 1).
3 and 11. The method according to claim 2, wherein the second waveguide segment comprises a third sidewall and one fourth sidewall, and an angle of rotation of a latter one of any two adjacent third sidewalls (there’s only one, so this limitation doesn’t further limit the claim) with respect to the first sidewall is smaller than an angle of rotation of a former one of the third sidewalls with respect to the first sidewall.
4 and 12. The method according to claim 2, wherein the second waveguide segment comprises a third sidewall and a fourth sidewall.
16. The optical-electronic printed circuit board according to claim 9, wherein the optical-electronic printed circuit board comprises a plurality of waveguide cores (see figure 1, core region 12 is interpreted as a waveguide core and therefore there are a plurality of waveguide cores).
17. The optical-electronic printed circuit board according to claim 16, wherein center lines (illustrated in figure 1) of the plurality of waveguide cores are parallel to each other (see figure 1).
18. The optical-electronic printed circuit board according to claim 9, wherein the optical-electronic printed circuit board further comprises an electronic component (see column 7, lines 55-60).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu, as previously applied to claim 1 above.
With respect to claims 19 and 20, Liu discloses the method of claim 1 as previously stated. Liu is silent to the limitations of An electronic device, wherein the electronic device comprises: one or more processors; a storage means having one or more programs stored thereon which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to implement the method according to claim 1; and one or more I/O interfaces connected between the one or more processors and the storage means and configured to enable information interaction between the one or more processors and the storage means; or A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having a computer program stored thereon which, when executed by a processor, causes the method according to claim 1 to be implemented.
However, the examiner takes Official Notice that an electronic device, wherein the electronic device comprises: one or more processors; a storage means having one or more programs stored thereon which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to implement a method; and one or more I/O interfaces connected between the one or more processors and the storage means and configured to enable information interaction between the one or more processors and the storage means; or A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having a computer program stored thereon which, when executed by a processor, causes a method to be implemented are all well-known components that are used every day in all manner of devices and are commonly used together to allow optical and electrical devices to communicate and execute computer programs and methods. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize these well-known components to implement the method of claim 1, as these types of devices are how we control machines to execute methods.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN M BEDTELYON whose telephone number is (571)270-1290. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00am - 4:30pm.
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 at 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.
/John Bedtelyon/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874