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 .
Summary
This action is responsive to the amendments and remarks filed on 12/18/2025. Applicant has submitted Claims 1-20 for examination.
Examiner finds the following: 1) Claims 1-20 are rejected; 2) no claims objected to; and 3) no claims allowable.
Response to Arguments and Remarks
Examiner respectfully acknowledges Applicant’s arguments, remarks, and amendments.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 1-2, 5-6, 8-10, and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Novack (US 20170082799 A1) in view of Freier (US 20080306719 A1 ).
Regarding Claim 1, Novack discloses:
A wafer, comprising:
a plurality of waveguides (Novack, FIG. 1, [0072], waveguide 125, and FIG. 3, [0083], showing multiple chips 310, each with a waveguide 125);
a test structure (Novack, FIG. 3, [0083], “Dicing lanes 360 are illustrated to indicate how the chips may be separated from each other, with the test structures (the grating coupler and the second edge coupler) for the adjacent chip remaining after dicing”) disposed on a surface of the wafer (Novack, FIG. 1, [0073], wafer 100), …
… a light source (Novack, FIG. 6, [0086], “an edge coupler 620 connected to a circuit on a chip (not shown) communicates with another edge coupler 600 as illustrated by the propagating light 610 that propagates across an etch trench”) configured to emit a beam of light toward an edge of the wafer (Novack, FIG. 6, [0086], “an edge coupler 620 connected to a circuit on a chip (not shown) communicates with another edge coupler 600 as illustrated by the propagating light 610 that propagates across an etch trench”), and the test structure is configured to guide at least a portion of the beam of light out of the wafer (Novack, FIG. 1, [0073], “This second edge coupler 140 can then be connected to a grating coupler 150 by way of an optical waveguide 180 in order to provide an interface for light that couples out of the plane of the chip”) ,,,
Novack discloses the above, but doesn’t explicitly disclose:
… the test structure comprising at least one test grating configured to directly receive internal light propagating through a body of the wafer and direct the internal light out of the body of the wafer (Novack, FIG. 1, [0073], “This second edge coupler 140 can then be connected to a grating coupler 150 by way of an optical waveguide 180 in order to provide an interface for light that couples out of the plane of the chip”); and …
… such that the beam of light propagates through the body of the wafer as the internal light.
However, Freier, in a similar field of endeavor (METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR SIMULATION OF OPTICAL SYSTEMS), discloses:
… the test structure comprising at least one test grating configured to directly receive internal light propagating through a body of the wafer and direct the internal light out of the body of the wafer (Freier, FIG. 1, [0129], “Brightness enhancing prismatic films help redirect stray light toward normal incidence. A common such film is constructed as a one-dimensional sawtooth grating with an optically large pitch (.about.50 microns) and depth (.about.50 microns)”); and …
… such that the beam of light propagates through the body of the wafer as the internal light (Freier, FIG. 1, [0045], “the ray 48 emerges from the optical film stack 20”).
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Novack with the grating and path of Freier. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of gratings as disclosed by Freier and how to use them to modify Novack. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(C)), specifically the known use of gratings and paths for measuring light through a wafer.
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Novack and Freier discloses the limitations of Claim 1, and Novack further discloses:
… wherein the internal light directed out of the wafer indicates a fidelity of one or more waveguides of the plurality of waveguides (Novack, FIG. 1, [0073], “This second edge coupler 140 can then be connected to a grating coupler 150 by way of an optical waveguide 180 in order to provide an interface for light that couples out of the plane of the chip”).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Novack and Freier discloses the limitations of Claim 1, and Novack further discloses:
… a second light source configured to provide a second beam of light to the test structure, wherein the second beam of light is configured to propagate through the wafer (Novack, FIG. 1, [0071], “an edge coupler is used to provide optical input and/or to receive optical output from photonic devices (or circuits) on a chip (e.g., to behave as an operating port for the photonic devices or circuits on the chip during normal operation).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Novack and Freier discloses the limitations of Claim 5, and Freier further discloses:
…wherein the beam of light includes a first wavelength and the second beam of light includes a second wavelength that is different from the first wavelength (Freier, [0177], “radiance may be specified independently at multiple colors or wavelengths, such as a red, a green, and a blue radiance, corresponding to the center wavelengths of a red, green, and blue source”).
As Freier discloses in [0177]:
The discussion of radiance above does not address wavelength dependencies, but for real sources radiance is wavelength dependent. A nominally red-emitting source may for example have a radiance specified at the center wavelength of the source, and the radiance may be assumed to change with wavelength in the same manner for all directions of emitted light. That is, the radiance at a short wavelength end of the nominally red emission band is assumed to have the same angular dependence as the radiance at a long wavelength end of the band, and each are attenuated by a uniform scaling factor compared to the peak radiance at the center wavelength
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Novack and Freier with the multiple wavelengths of Freier. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of multiple wavelengths as disclosed by Freier and how to use them to modify the combination of Novack and Freier. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(C)), specifically the use of multiple wavelengths due to the known relationship between radiance and wavelength.
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Novack and Freier discloses the limitations of Claim 1, and Novack further discloses:
… wherein the light source is coupled to a flat edge of the wafer (Novack, FIG. 1, [0071], “an edge coupler is used to provide optical input and/or to receive optical output from photonic devices (or circuits) on a chip (e.g., to behave as an operating port for the photonic devices or circuits on the chip during normal operation),” and FIG. 3, [0083], dicing lane 370, which Examiner understands as inherently creating a flat edge).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Novack and Freier discloses the limitations of Claim 1, and Novack further discloses:
… wherein the light source is disposed proximate to a flat edge of the wafer (Novack, FIG. 1, [0071], “an edge coupler is used to provide optical input and/or to receive optical output from photonic devices (or circuits) on a chip (e.g., to behave as an operating port for the photonic devices or circuits on the chip during normal operation),” and FIG. 3, [0083], dicing lane 370, which Examiner understands as inherently creating a flat edge).
Regarding Claim 10, Novack discloses:
A wafer, comprising:
a plurality of waveguides (Novack, FIG. 1, [0072], waveguide 125, and FIG. 3, [0083], showing multiple chips 310, each with a waveguide 125);
a test structure (Novack, FIG. 3, [0083], “Dicing lanes 360 are illustrated to indicate how the chips may be separated from each other, with the test structures (the grating coupler and the second edge coupler) for the adjacent chip remaining after dicing”) disposed on a surface of the wafer (Novack, FIG. 1, [0073], wafer 100), …
… a plurality of light sources configured to emit light towards an edge of the wafer such that (Novack, FIG. 6, [0086], “an edge coupler 620 connected to a circuit on a chip (not shown) communicates with another edge coupler 600 as illustrated by the propagating light 610 that propagates across an etch trench”) the light propagates through the body of the wafer as the internal light (Novack, FIG. 6, [0086], “an edge coupler 620 connected to a circuit on a chip (not shown) communicates with another edge coupler 600 as illustrated by the propagating light 610 that propagates across an etch trench”), and …
Novack discloses the above, but doesn’t explicitly disclose:
… the test structure comprising at least one test grating configured to directly receive internal light propagating through a body of the wafer and direct the internal light out of the wafer; and …
… the test structure is configured to guide at least a portion of the light out of the wafer (Novack, FIG. 1, [0073], “This second edge coupler 140 can then be connected to a grating coupler 150 by way of an optical waveguide 180 in order to provide an interface for light that couples out of the plane of the chip”).
However, Freier, in a similar field of endeavor (METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR SIMULATION OF OPTICAL SYSTEMS), discloses:
… the test structure comprising at least one test grating configured to directly receive internal light propagating through a body of the wafer and direct the internal light out of the wafer (Freier, FIG. 1, [0129], “Brightness enhancing prismatic films help redirect stray light toward normal incidence. A common such film is constructed as a one-dimensional sawtooth grating with an optically large pitch (.about.50 microns) and depth (.about.50 microns)”); and …
… the test structure is configured to guide at least a portion of the light out of the wafer (Freier, FIG. 1, [0045], “the ray 48 emerges from the optical film stack 20”).
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Novack with the grating and path of Freier. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of gratings as disclosed by Freier and how to use them to modify Novack. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(C)), specifically the known use of gratings and paths for measuring light through a wafer.
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Novack and Freier discloses the limitations of Claim 10, and Novack further discloses:
… wherein the test structure includes a set of gratings configured to direct the at least a portion of the light out of the wafer (Novack, FIG. 1, [0073], “This second edge coupler 140 can then be connected to a grating coupler 150 by way of an optical waveguide 180 in order to provide an interface for light that couples out of the plane of the chip”).
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Novack and Freier discloses the limitations of Claim 10, and Novack further discloses:
… wherein the plurality of light sources is coupled to a flat edge of the wafer (Novack, FIG. 1, [0071], “an edge coupler is used to provide optical input and/or to receive optical output from photonic devices (or circuits) on a chip (e.g., to behave as an operating port for the photonic devices or circuits on the chip during normal operation),” and FIG. 3, [0083], dicing lane 370, which Examiner understands as inherently creating a flat edge).
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Novack and Freier discloses the limitations of Claim 10, and Novack further discloses:
… wherein the plurality of light sources is disposed proximate to a flat edge of the wafer (Novack, FIG. 1, [0071], “an edge coupler is used to provide optical input and/or to receive optical output from photonic devices (or circuits) on a chip (e.g., to behave as an operating port for the photonic devices or circuits on the chip during normal operation),” and FIG. 3, [0083], dicing lane 370, which Examiner understands as inherently creating a flat edge).
Regarding Claim 16, the combination of Novack and Freier discloses the limitations of Claim 10, and Novack further discloses:
… wherein the plurality of light sources are configured to activate sequentially (Novack, [0092], “one can use a plurality of coupler structures in sequence in order to characterize system losses”).
Claims 3, 7, 11-12, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Novack (US 20170082799 A1), in view of Freier (US 20080306719 A1 ), and in further view of Weber (US20100238686A1).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Novack and Freier discloses Claim 1, but doesn’t explicitly disclose:
… further comprising: a conoscope configured to measure an intensity of the internal light as the internal light exits the wafer.
However, Weber, in a similar field of endeavor (RECYCLING BACKLIGHTS WITH SEMI-SPECULAR COMPONENTS), discloses:
… a conoscope configured to measure an intensity of the at least a portion of the beam of light as the at least a portion of the beam of light exits the wafer (Weber, FIG. 12, [0119], “A sample of the film was inserted into the Autronics Conoscope and illuminated with collimated light incident at various angles of incidence .theta. in a plane of incidence whose azimuthal direction Phi (a rotation of the plane of incidence pivoted about the surface normal direction) was 0. The measured reflected light intensity vs. angle data for all theta and phi angles can be visualized with a contour plot such as the one in FIG. 12, which is for an angle of incidence of 45 degrees”).
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Novack with the conoscope of Weber. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of conoscope as disclosed by Weber and how to use them to modify Novack. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(C)), specifically the known use of conoscopes for measuring light.
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Novack and Freier discloses the limitations of Claim 6, but does not explicitly disclose:
… a conoscope configured to determine a first diffraction efficiency of the test structure at the first wavelength and a second diffraction efficiency at the second wavelength.
However, Weber, in a similar field of endeavor (RECYCLING BACKLIGHTS WITH SEMI-SPECULAR COMPONENTS), discloses:
… a conoscope configured to determine a first diffraction efficiency of the test structure at the first wavelength and a second diffraction efficiency at the second wavelength (Weber, FIG. 12, [0119], “A sample of the film was inserted into the Autronics Conoscope and illuminated with collimated light incident at various angles of incidence .theta. in a plane of incidence whose azimuthal direction Phi (a rotation of the plane of incidence pivoted about the surface normal direction) was 0. The measured reflected light intensity vs. angle data for all theta and phi angles can be visualized with a contour plot such as the one in FIG. 12, which is for an angle of incidence of 45 degrees”).
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Novack and Freier with the conoscope of Weber. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of conoscope as disclosed by Weber and how to use them to modify the combination of Novack and Freier. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(C)), specifically the known use of conoscopes for measuring light.
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Novack and Freier discloses the limitations of Claim 10, but does not explicitly disclose:
… a conoscope configured to:
determine one or more modes of the internal light propagating through the body of the wafer; and
determine a respective diffraction efficiency of the test structure for each mode of the one or more modes of the internal light propagating through the body of the wafer.
However, Weber, in a similar field of endeavor (RECYCLING BACKLIGHTS WITH SEMI-SPECULAR COMPONENTS), discloses:
… a conoscope (Weber, FIG. 12, [0119], “A sample of the film was inserted into the Autronics Conoscope and illuminated with collimated light incident at various angles of incidence .theta. in a plane of incidence whose azimuthal direction Phi (a rotation of the plane of incidence pivoted about the surface normal direction) was 0. The measured reflected light intensity vs. angle data for all theta and phi angles can be visualized with a contour plot such as the one in FIG. 12, which is for an angle of incidence of 45 degrees”) configured to:
determine one or more modes of the light propagating through the wafer (Weber, FIG. 12, [0119], “A sample of the film was inserted into the Autronics Conoscope and illuminated with collimated light incident at various angles of incidence .theta. in a plane of incidence whose azimuthal direction Phi (a rotation of the plane of incidence pivoted about the surface normal direction) was 0. The measured reflected light intensity vs. angle data for all theta and phi angles can be visualized with a contour plot such as the one in FIG. 12, which is for an angle of incidence of 45 degrees”); and
determine a respective diffraction efficiency of the test structure for each mode of the one or more modes of light propagating through the wafer (Weber, FIG. 12, [0119], “A sample of the film was inserted into the Autronics Conoscope and illuminated with collimated light incident at various angles of incidence .theta. in a plane of incidence whose azimuthal direction Phi (a rotation of the plane of incidence pivoted about the surface normal direction) was 0. The measured reflected light intensity vs. angle data for all theta and phi angles can be visualized with a contour plot such as the one in FIG. 12, which is for an angle of incidence of 45 degrees”).
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Novack and Freier with the conoscope of Weber. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of conoscope as disclosed by Weber and how to use them to modify the combination of Novack and Freier. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(C)), specifically the known use of conoscopes for measuring light.
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Novack, Freier, and Weber discloses the limitations of Claim 11, but does not explicitly disclose:
… a linear polarizer disposed between the test structure and the conoscope.
That said, Weber does disclose polarizers throughout. Most specifically, [0006]:
…light management films, such as a reflective polarizer film and prismatic BEF film(s), can also be placed atop the diffuser plate for improved on-axis brightness and efficiency,” [0049], “The solid light guide is used primarily to provide a lateral dispersion of the light before the light interacts with other components such as reflective polarizers and other brightness enhancement films,”
Also in [0082]:
Still another approach is covering the light source with a piece of a reflective polarizer that is misaligned with respect to a polarization pass axis of the front reflector. The light transmitted by the local reflective polarizer proceeds to the front reflector where it is mostly reflected and recycled, thereby inducing a substantial lateral spreading of the light.
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Novack, Freier, and Weber with the linear polarization of Weber. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of linear polarization as disclosed by Weber and how to use them to modify the combination of Novack, Freier, and Weber. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(C)), specifically the use of polarizers to control and define the polarization state.
Regarding Claim 17, Novack discloses:
A method, comprising:
before dicing a wafer (Novack, [0071], “mark the ones that are bad, separate the individual chips (for example by dicing)”) including a plurality of waveguides (Novack, FIG. 1, [0072], waveguide 125, and FIG. 3, [0083], showing multiple chips 310, each with a waveguide 125), emitting, from a light source (Novack, FIG. 6, [0086], “an edge coupler 620 connected to a circuit on a chip (not shown) communicates with another edge coupler 600 as illustrated by the propagating light 610 that propagates across an etch trench”), … the test structure comprising at least one test grating (Novack, FIG. 1, [0073], “This second edge coupler 140 can then be connected to a grating coupler 150 by way of an optical waveguide 180 in order to provide an interface for light that couples out of the plane of the chip”); and
measuring an intensity of at least a portion of the light exiting the wafer at the at least one test grating of the test structure (Novack, [0078], “A second tap can be used to measure an optical output of the circuit”); and …
Novack discloses the above, but doesn’t explicitly disclose:
… light toward an edge of the wafer such that the light propagates through a body of the wafer and is directly received by a test structure, …
However, Freier, in a similar field of endeavor (METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR SIMULATION OF OPTICAL SYSTEMS), discloses:
… light toward an edge of the wafer such that the light propagates through a body of the wafer and is directly received by a test structure (Freier, FIG. 1, [0129], “Brightness enhancing prismatic films help redirect stray light toward normal incidence. A common such film is constructed as a one-dimensional sawtooth grating with an optically large pitch (.about.50 microns) and depth (.about.50 microns)”), …
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Novack with the grating and path of Freier. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of gratings as disclosed by Freier and how to use them to modify Novack. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(C)), specifically the known use of gratings and paths for measuring light through a wafer.
The combination of Novack and Freier discloses the above but does not explicitly disclose:
… determining a fidelity of one or more waveguides of the plurality of waveguides based on the measured intensity.
However, Weber, in a similar field of endeavor (RECYCLING BACKLIGHTS WITH SEMI-SPECULAR COMPONENTS), discloses:
… determining a fidelity of one or more waveguides of the plurality of waveguides based on the measured intensity (Weber, FIG. 12, [0119], “A sample of the film was inserted into the Autronics Conoscope and illuminated with collimated light incident at various angles of incidence .theta. in a plane of incidence whose azimuthal direction Phi (a rotation of the plane of incidence pivoted about the surface normal direction) was 0. The measured reflected light intensity vs. angle data for all theta and phi angles can be visualized with a contour plot such as the one in FIG. 12, which is for an angle of incidence of 45 degrees”).
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Novack and Freier with the diffraction efficiency analysis of Weber. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of diffraction efficiency analysis as disclosed by Weber and how to use them to modify the combination of Novack and Freier. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(C)), specifically the known measurements based on diffraction efficiency analysis.
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of Novack, Freier, and Weber discloses the limitations of Claim 17, and Weber further discloses:
… determining one or more modes of the light propagating through the body of the wafer (Weber, FIG. 12, [0119], “A sample of the film was inserted into the Autronics Conoscope and illuminated with collimated light incident at various angles of incidence .theta. in a plane of incidence whose azimuthal direction Phi (a rotation of the plane of incidence pivoted about the surface normal direction) was 0. The measured reflected light intensity vs. angle data for all theta and phi angles can be visualized with a contour plot such as the one in FIG. 12, which is for an angle of incidence of 45 degrees”); and determining a respective diffraction efficiency of the test structure for each of the one or more modes (Weber, FIG. 12, [0119], “A sample of the film was inserted into the Autronics Conoscope and illuminated with collimated light incident at various angles of incidence .theta. in a plane of incidence whose azimuthal direction Phi (a rotation of the plane of incidence pivoted about the surface normal direction) was 0. The measured reflected light intensity vs. angle data for all theta and phi angles can be visualized with a contour plot such as the one in FIG. 12, which is for an angle of incidence of 45 degrees”).
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Novack and Weber with the conoscope of Weber. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of conoscope as disclosed by Weber and how to use them to modify the combination of Novack and Weber. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(C)), specifically the known use of conoscopes for measuring light.
Regarding Claim 19, the combination of Novack, Freier, and Weber discloses the limitations of Claim 17, and Novack further discloses:
… wherein the light source is coupled to a flat edge of the wafer (Novack, FIG. 1, [0071], “an edge coupler is used to provide optical input and/or to receive optical output from photonic devices (or circuits) on a chip (e.g., to behave as an operating port for the photonic devices or circuits on the chip during normal operation),” and FIG. 3, [0083], dicing lane 370, which Examiner understands as inherently creating a flat edge).
Regarding Claim 20, the combination of Novack, Freier, and Weber discloses the limitations of Claim 17, and Novack further discloses:
… wherein the light source is disposed proximate to a flat edge of the wafer (Novack, FIG. 1, [0071], “an edge coupler is used to provide optical input and/or to receive optical output from photonic devices (or circuits) on a chip (e.g., to behave as an operating port for the photonic devices or circuits on the chip during normal operation),” and FIG. 3, [0083], dicing lane 370, which Examiner understands as inherently creating a flat edge).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Novack (US 20170082799 A1), in view of Freier (US 20080306719 A1 ), in further view of Weber (US20100238686A1), and in further view of Fay (US 20120224183 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Novack, Freier, and Weber discloses the limitations of Claim 3, and even though Weber discusses various aspects of conoscopes, it does not explicitly disclose:
… wherein the conoscope is further configured to:
determine a diffraction efficiency of one or more waveguides of the plurality of waveguides based waveguides based on the measured intensity.
However, Fay further discloses in FIGS. 16(a)-16(b), [0128]:
Waveguide 1610 directs the light to a collimating lens 1612, which collimates the light and directs it to a beamsplitter 1615. Beamsplitter 1615 directs the light to a dynamic diffraction grating 1620 (e.g., a micromirror modulator), which diffracts at least a portion of the incident light back to beamsplitter 1615. The beamsplitter transmits light to a lens 1614, which focuses light onto an entrance pupil of the interference microscope (not shown).
Examiner understands Fay to monitor the light out of beamsplitter 1615, coming from waveguide 1610, through the use of dynamic diffraction grating 1620. Otherwise, Examiner believes the diffraction of at least a portion of the light cannot be properly adjusted.
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Novack, Freier, and Weber with the waveguides of Fay. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of gratings as disclosed by Fay and how to use them to modify the combination of Novack, Freier, and Weber. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(C)), specifically the use of monitoring waveguides to control and redirect light.
Conclusion
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHAD A REVERMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0079. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5 EST.
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, Kara Geisel can be reached at (571) 272-2416. 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.
/CHAD ANDREW REVERMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/Kara E. Geisel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights