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
Claims 1, 5-10, 14-16 and 20 are currently pending.
Applicant’s amendment filed 09 June 2026 overcomes the prior rejection(s). However, the amendment introduces a new ground(s) of rejection.
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 5-7 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. Specifically, claim 1, from which claims 5-7 each depend, recites “a plurality of heaters,” whereas claims 5-7 each recite singular “the heater.” It is unclear whether “the heater” refers to one heater, each heater, or the plurality of heaters collectively. Consequently, it is unclear whether the coating layer limitation of claim 5, the material limitation of claim 6, and the thickness limitation of claim 7 apply to one, some, or all of the plurality of heaters.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Specifically, claim 20 depends from claim 19, which has been canceled. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claims 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Liang (US 10459133 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Liang discloses a grating structure (FIGS. 4A-4B, hybrid grating 400; Col. 5:8-10) comprising:
a grating layer comprising a first surface, a second surface opposite to the first surface (FIG. 4A, second grating layer 404 and grating structures 405; each structure 405 is depicted with an upper face and an opposite lower face), and
a plurality of grating teeth between the first surface and the second surface (Col. 5:13-14, “second grating layer 404 comprises a plurality of grating structures 405”);
a slab layer on a surface of at least one of the plurality of grating teeth (FIG. 4A, layer 401 contacts the lower face of each tooth 405 through the corresponding integral structure 402; Col. 5:10-14); and
a plurality of heaters (FIG. 4A, heater material layer 407), each heater of the plurality of heaters contacting at least a portion of the first surface that is an upper surface of each grating tooth of the plurality of grating teeth, respectively (FIGS. 4A-4B, respective conductive layers 408 directly on the upper faces of teeth 405; Col. 5:24-25, “heater material layer 407 may comprise a plurality of conductive layers 408 disposed on the structures”).
Regarding claim 6, Liang discloses the grating structure of claim 1, and further discloses: wherein the heater comprises nickel (Ni), tantalum (Ta), platinum (Pt), gold (Au), silver (Ag), titanium (Ti), aluminum (Al), copper (Cu), or tungsten (W) (FIGS. 4A-4B, heater 408; Col. 5:24-27, the conductive layers 408 may be metal layers “such as chromium or tungsten”).
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang in view of Ahuja (US 6427040 B1).
Regarding claim 5, Liang discloses the grating structure of claim 1, however does not disclose: wherein the heater comprises a coating layer, comprising a dielectric material, dividing the heater. Ahuja teaches the limitation in FIG. 1A, multilayer heater 13, as further detailed by the FIG. 1B axial cross-section; heater 13 includes resistive film portions 14A-14D divided by interposed thin insulating layers 15A-15C; Col. 4:4-9, “resistive films are separated by thin insulating layers 15A, 15B, 15C” and are connected to respective power sources for independent current control electrically isolate and independently drive conductive heater portions. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the heater of Liang with the teachings of Ahuja with a reasonable expectation of success in order to electrically isolate and independently drive conductive heater portions, thereby yielding grating-selectable heat generation profiles and correspondingly adjustable local refractive index per grating tooth enabling greater control and tailoring of the grating optical properties (Ahuja, Col. 3:8-15; Col. 4:4-9).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang in view of Tu (US 20220091338 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Liang discloses the grating structure of claim 1, however does not disclose: wherein the heater has a thickness equal to or less than 1.5 µm. Tu teaches the limitation in ¶ 63. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the heater of Liang with the teachings of Tu with a reasonable expectation of success in order to implement a high resistance metal heater for localized thermos-optic heating, thereby yielding a grating structure with energy efficient wavelength tuning and lower optical loss (Tu, ¶¶ 59, 61, 63).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang in view of Xiong (“Integrated Photonic Circuits in Gallium Nitride and Aluminum Nitride,” published 2014)1.
Regarding claim 8, Liang discloses the grating structure of claim 1, and further discloses: […] a material of the grating layer (Col. 3:2, GaN) […] a material of the slab layer (Col. 2:20, Si). However, Liang does not disclosure the refractive index of GaN is less than Si. Xiong teaches in Table 1 the associated refractive index of GaN to be n = 2.43 which is less than Si having n = 3.47. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to operate the grating structure of Liang based on the teachings of Xiong with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide a grating structure operational at the 1550 nm telecommunications wavelength, thereby yielding an optical component compatible with integrated photonics and telecommunications platform offering broad applicability and utility in photonic systems and optical signal processing (Xiong, pp. 1-2, § 2 & Table 1).
Claims 1 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tu in view of Liang.
Regarding claim 1, Tu discloses a grating structure (FIGS. 2A-2B; ¶¶ 39, 50) comprising:
a grating layer (FIGS. 2A-2B, Echelle grating 230) comprising a first surface (FIG. 2B, the exposed upper surface of Echelle grating 230), a second surface opposite to the first surface (FIG. 2B, the lower, substrate facing surface of Echelle grating 230), and
a plurality of grating teeth between the first surface and the second surface (FIG. 2A, inset depicting the repeated sawtooth portions defining reflective facets 250; ¶72, “number of grating teeth” of a tunable Echelle grating);
a slab layer on a surface of at least one of the plurality of grating teeth (FIG. 2B, Echelle grating 230 disposed on substrate 231); and […].
Tu does not teach: “a plurality of heaters, each heater of the plurality of heaters contacting at least a portion of the first surface that is an upper surface of each grating tooth of the plurality of grating teeth, respectively.” However, Liang teaches the limitation. Specifically, Liang teaches a grating 404 comprising a plurality of grating teethes 405 (FIG. 4A; Col. 5:8-16; Col. 2:28-37; Col. 3:8-12), and further discloses a heater material layer 407 comprising a plurality of conductive layers 408, each disposed on a respective grating tooth 405 to generate heat (Col. 5:22-30). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the grating structure of Tu with the teachings of Liang. Tu already teaches thermally tuning an Echelle grating using a resistively heated metal tuning pad, and expressly states that more than one tuning pad may be used, and identifies heater material, thickness, shape, and location as design parameters affecting tuning (Tu, ¶¶ 52, 57, 61). Liang employs the same predictable thermal tuning mechanism to alter the index of an optical grating by placing the heater elements directly on respective grating structures. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify the grating structure of Hosseini in view of Tu with the teachings of Liang in order to providing direct heating of each grating teeth for tuning the optical index of the grating, thereby allowing for compensation of any unwanted environmental temperature changes and reducing the overall thermal instability of the grating structure (Liang, Col. 5:1-7).
Regarding claim 9, Tu in view of Liang teaches the grating structure of claim 1, and further teaches: wherein the grating layer comprises an echelle grating (Tu, FIGS. 2A-2B, Echelle grating 230).
Claims 10 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hosseini (US 20180306925 A1) in view of Tu further in view of Liang.
Regarding claim 15, Hosseini discloses a light detection and ranging (LiDAR) device (FIG. 9; ¶ 51, LiDAR) comprising:
a light source (FIG. 9, λ1, λ2, λ3, λ4; ¶¶ 51 & 57);
a steering device (FIG. 9, optical components downstream laser source, including WDM and Transmitter Optical Phased Array);
a detector (FIG. 9, detectors downstream 90º hybrids; ¶ 60); and
a processor (¶ 61, processing electronics), wherein
the steering device comprises an optical phased array device (FIG. 9, Transmitter Optical Phased Array, the operations as further detailed in FIGS. 2-3) that comprises:
a multiplexer (FIG. 9, WDM on transmit-side) configured to receive and multiplex light from the light source (¶ 57, multiplex laser output into one waveguide);
a light distribution device configured to distribute the light passing through the multiplexer (FIG. 9, Optical splitter network; ¶ 45, distribute multiplexed beam across parallel waveguides in the phased array);
a light modulator configured to modulate the multiplexed light distributed by the light distribution device (FIG. 9, phase shifters; ¶¶ 48 & 58); and
an output device (¶¶ 35, 45, 58, optical gratings used for beam output in a phased array; see further FIGS. 2-3) configured to receive light from the light modulator and simultaneously emit a plurality of output lights (¶ 58, each of the different wavelengths are emitted simultaneously; see further, FIG. 10), [1: …]; and [2: …].
Hosseini does not disclose:
(1) “wherein the multiplexer comprises: a grating layer comprising a first surface, a second surface opposite to the first surface, and a plurality of grating teeth between the first surface and the second surface; a slab layer disposed on a surface of at least one of the plurality of grating teeth”; and,
(2) “a plurality of heaters, each heater of the plurality of heaters contacting at least a portion of the first surface that is an upper surface of each grating tooth of the plurality of grating teeth, respectively.”
However, Tu teaches limitation (1). Specifically, Tu teaches a multiplexer (¶ 51) comprising: a grating structure (FIG. 2C) comprising: a grating layer (FIG. 2C, grating 230) comprising a first surface (FIG. 2C, the exposed upper surface of grating 230), a second surface opposite to the first surface (FIG. 2C, the lower substrate facing surface of grating 230), and a plurality of grating teeth between the first surface and the second surface (FIG. 2C, inset depicting the repeated sawtooth portions defining reflective facets 250; ¶ 72, “number of grating teeth” of a tunable Echelle grating); a slab layer on a surface of at least one of the plurality of grating teeth (FIG. 2B, grating 230 disposed on substrate 231). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the multiplexer of Hosseini with the teachings of Tu with a reasonable expectation for success in order to multiplex light using an Echelle grating architecture and avoid proportional growth in device size as light sources are added, thereby yielding a multiplexer having reduced size scaling with increased numbers of light sources and improved suitability for small form factor devices (Tu, ¶¶ 37-38, 58).
Hosseini in view of Tu does not teach limitation (2). However, Liang teaches the limitation. Specifically, Liang teaches a grating 404 comprising a plurality of grating teethes 405 (FIG. 4A; Col. 5:8-16; Col. 2:28-37; Col. 3:8-12), and further discloses a heater material layer 407 comprising a plurality of conductive layers 408, each disposed on a respective grating tooth 405 to generate heat (Col. 5:22-30). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the grating structure of Hosseini in view of Tu with the teachings of Liang. Tu already contemplates thermally tuning an Echelle grating using a resistively heated metal tuning pad, and expressly states that more than one tuning pad may be used, and identifies heater material, thickness, shape, and location as design parameters affecting tuning (Tu, ¶¶ 52, 57, 61). Liang employs the same predictable thermal tuning mechanism to alter the index of an optical grating by placing the heater elements directly on respective grating structures. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify the grating structure of Hosseini in view of Tu with the teachings of Liang in order to providing direct heating of each grating teeth for tuning the optical index of the grating, thereby allowing for compensation of any unwanted environmental temperature changes and reducing the overall thermal instability of the grating structure (Liang, Col. 5:1-7).
Regarding claim 16, Hosseini in view of Tu and Liang teaches the light detection and ranging (LiDAR) device of claim 15, and further teaches: comprising a demultiplexer, wherein the demultiplexer is configured to demultiplex the light reflected from an object and divide the light into light having different wavelengths (Hosseini, ¶ 59 & FIG. 9, demultiplexer between modulator and 90º hybrid).
Claim 10 corresponds to the optical phased array device described as part of the LiDAR device of claim 15 and recites substantially the same limitations. Accordingly, claim 10 is rejected on the same grounds and in view of the same prior art as claim 15.
Regarding claim 14, Hosseini in view of Tu and Liang teaches the optical phased array device of claim 10, and further teaches: wherein the multiplexer, the light distribution device, the light modulator, and the output device are optically connected (Hosseini, Fig. 9, optically connected via waveguides).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hosseini in view of Tu further in view of Liang further in view of Ahuja.
Regarding claim 20, Hosseini in view of Tu and Liang teaches the LiDAR device of claim [19] 15, however does not teach: wherein the heater comprises a coating layer, comprising a dielectric material, dividing the heater. Ahuja teaches the limitation in FIG. 1A, multilayer heater 13, as further detailed by the FIG. 1B axial cross-section; heater 13 includes resistive film portions 14A-14D divided by interposed thin insulating layers 15A-15C; Col. 4:4-9, “resistive films are separated by thin insulating layers 15A, 15B, 15C” and are connected to respective power sources for independent current control electrically isolate and independently drive conductive heater portions. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the heater of Hosseini in view of Tu and Liang with the teachings of Ahuja with a reasonable expectation of success in order to electrically isolate and independently drive conductive heater portions, thereby yielding grating-selectable heat generation profiles and correspondingly adjustable local refractive index per grating tooth enabling greater control and tailoring of the grating optical properties (Ahuja, Col. 3:8-15; Col. 4:4-9).
Conclusion
Prior art made of record though not relied upon in the present basis of rejection are noted in the attached PTO 892 and include:
Jordan (US 6522795 B1) which discloses an optical grating structure with etched periodic grating features, an overlying controllable index cladding, and resistive heaters control elements used to tune the grating’s optical response.
Hu (US 20210333575 A1) which discloses a tunable optical grating coupler structures having grating teeth with phase change material and integrated heaters that locally heat the teeth to change refractive index and tune optical coupling and beam steering properties.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 ZHENGQING QI whose telephone number is 571-272-1078. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM ET.
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, YUQING XIAO can be reached on 571-270-3603. 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.
/ZHENGQING QI/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
1 Chi Xiong, Wolfram Pernice, Carsten Schuck & Hong X. Tang, “Integrated Photonic Circuits in Gallium Nitride and Aluminum Nitride,” International Journal of High Speed Electronics and Systems, Vol. 23, No. 1, Article No. 1450001, 2014.
Prosecution Insights