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 .
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 7 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.
The phrase “a waveguide disposed in the channel waveguide” is indefinite because it lacks clear antecedent basis and does not distinctly define the relationship between the “waveguide” and the “channel waveguide.” In the context of the specification, the “channel waveguide” refers to an array of optical waveguides, with each individual optical waveguide constituting a channel. The current claim language could be interpreted as a waveguide located inside another waveguide, which is not supported by the disclosure and is technically unclear.
To distinctly claim the intended subject matter and provide proper antecedent basis, applicant is advised to amend the claim to recite: [each optical waveguide disposed in the channel waveguide comprises a core and a cladding…”.
This amendment clarifies that the structural features (core, cladding, lens, etc.) apply to each optical waveguide that forms part of the channel waveguide array, consistent with the disclosure (see, e.g., paragraphs [0079], [0082], and Fig. 13). Accordingly, claim 7 is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. §112(b).
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(s) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0363633 A1 (Pulikkaseril et al.) in view of KR1019990031848 (Kim et al.).
Re claim 1, An optical phased array device for a LIDAR sensor, the optical phased array device comprising: a light source (see [0026], [102]) configured to irradiate a laser beam having a predetermined wavelength band ([0029], [0046], Figs. 2, 4, 7); an input waveguide [0027] through which the laser beam irradiated from the light source passes; a slab waveguide disposed at an output end of the input waveguide to branch an optical signal input from the input waveguide (a wavelength router/arrayed waveguide grating (AWG) [0029], [0046], Figs. 2, 4, 7); and a channel waveguide configured to distribute and guide the optical signal, branched by the slab waveguide, to M channels and to radiate the optical signal onto a free space ([0030], [0046], [208], [602], [604]). Kim identifies the following limitations, which Pulikkaseril does not address: wherein the channel waveguide comprises a silica optical waveguide disposed for each of the M channels ([Fig. 1], [22], [24], [26], [28]), and a length of each of the optical waveguides has a length difference ΔL from an adjacent waveguide (Fig. 1. Equation I, Deformation section D).
Both references address wavelength-based beam steering using waveguide arrays with path length differences for optical routing and LIDAR; therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Pulikkaseril with the teaching of Kim for improved passband, reduced loss, and robust steering.
Re claim 2, The optical phased array device as set forth in claim 1, wherein the light source employs a wavelength tunable laser diode for changing an oscillation wavelength within a predetermined range (see [0032]: the light source 102 may be a wavelength-tunable laser, allowing selection of the desired wavelength channel via an electronic control signal).
Re claim 3, The optical phased array device as set forth in claim 1, wherein when a diffraction order m (where m is an integer) is determined based on a central wavelength λo of light incident from a center of an input end of the channel waveguide and traveling to a center of an output end of the channel waveguide, the length difference ΔL is determined depending on the central wavelength λo and the diffraction order m (Kim et al. teach a waveguide array where the path length difference ΔL between adjacent waveguides is set based on the wavelength and diffraction order, Kim’s Equation I and the description of “predetermined path difference” between waveguides ([Config. & Operation], [Equation I]) indicate that ΔL is chosen to achieve constructive interference for a given wavelength at a particular output port—this is the classic arrayed waveguide grating (AWG) principle. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching of Kim and to set the path length difference ΔL in the combined system according to both the central wavelength and the diffraction order, as this is a foundational and well-established design principle in AWG-based wavelength routers. Doing so ensures accurate wavelength separation and routing,
Re claim 4. The optical phased array device as set forth in claim 3, wherein a traveling direction of incident light is changed by a length difference of each optical waveguide of the channel waveguide when a wavelength of the incident light is changed. (see Pulikkaseril [0023]-[0025], [0047]-[0049], [0051]).
5. The optical phased array device as set forth in claim 1, wherein each of the waveguides arranged in the channel waveguide comprises: a first waveguide region formed to have a straight line shape having a predetermined length to propagate an optical signal input from the input waveguide; a second waveguide region connected to the first waveguide region and formed to have a curved shape having a predetermined curvature; and a third waveguide region formed to have a straight line shape having a predetermined length such that an optical signal passing through the second waveguide region travels in a predetermined direction by optical diffraction, and the first waveguide region, the second waveguide region, and the third waveguide region allow each waveguide to have a length difference ΔL from an adjacent waveguide. Pulikkaseril et al. disclose waveguide routing and shaping (see [0043], [0045], [0046]). Kim et al. show input, curved/transition, and straight output regions for each waveguide in the array (see Fig. 1: curved section “A”, transition section “B”, straight/free space “C”, and detailed description under [Config. & Operation]). The combination of these regions enables the path length difference ΔL. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt the straight–curved–straight waveguide geometry of Kim et al. in the system of Pulikkaseril et al., in order to achieve precise control of optical path length differences (ΔL) between channels.
Re claim 6. The optical phased array device as set forth in claim 1, wherein an inclined surface having a predetermined slope is formed at an output end of the channel waveguide. Kim et al. describe output coupling surfaces at the end of the waveguide array, which may be inclined or otherwise shaped for efficient coupling (see [Fig. 1], [28], [26]; standard in the art for output coupling). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate an inclined surface at the output end of the channel waveguide, as taught by Kim et al., into the system of Pulikkaseril et al., in order to improve the efficiency of light emission from the waveguide array into free space.
Re claim 7. The optical phased array device as set forth in claim 1, wherein a waveguide disposed in the channel waveguide comprises a core and a cladding, and a lens is disposed on a surface of the cladding, and an optical axis of the core and an optical axis of the lens intersect each other at a single point. Pulikkaseril et al. (US 2020/0363633 A1) discuss the use of output coupling and collimating optics (see [0051], “collimating element,” and discussion of output optics in Figs. 5–7). It is well known in the art that placing a lens (such as a microlens or GRIN lens) on the surface of the cladding at the output facet of a waveguide is used to collimate or focus the emitted light. Aligning the optical axis of the waveguide core with the optical axis of the lens so that they intersect at a single point is a routine design consideration to maximize coupling efficiency and minimize aberrations. Kim explicitly teach the use of a ridge-type optical waveguide structure comprising a core and a cladding (see Fig. 2 and associated description: “core layer 24d…InP substrate 24c…InP layer 24e…”). Such core/cladding structures are standard in integrated photonics for confining and guiding light with low loss and high mode quality. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a waveguide comprising a core and a cladding (as taught by Kim et al.), and to dispose a lens on the surface of the cladding with the optical axis of the core and the optical axis of the lens intersecting at a single point in order to improve the efficiency and quality of light coupling from the waveguide array into free space or downstream optics.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISAM ALSOMIRI whose telephone number is (571)272-6970. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30 M-F.
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, Namrata Boveja can be reached at 571-272-8105. 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.
/ISAM A ALSOMIRI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645