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 .
Priority
No Claim for Priority has been made at this time.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on August 30, 2024 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
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 1-17 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.
The term “by a distance being about (q + ¼ )Λ” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about (q + ¼ )Λ” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For purposes of compact prosecution Examiner has interpreted the limitation to be by a distance being (q + ¼ )Λ.
Claims 2-17 are rejected due to their dependency on Claim 1.
The term “a thickness of about Λ/4” in claim 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “a thickness of about Λ/4” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For purposes of compact prosecution Examiner has interpreted the limitation to be a thickness of Λ/4.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-7, 9 are rejected as being unpatentable over 35 U.S.C. 103 over Dykaar US 20200274326 in view of Filmland et al. US 20190355868.
Regarding Claim 1, Dykaar teaches An optical device to amplify an input light propagating along an optical path (Figs. 9-10, 900), the optical device comprising:
a substrate (Fig. 9, 110 Paragraph 0054 “Device 100 comprises a substrate 110,”); and
a plurality of light emitters (Fig. 5, 505, 115, 510 Paragraph 0055 “Nanorod 115 may be electrically biased to emit light,” Paragraph 0080 “device 100 is that device 500 comprises two additional nanorods 505 and 510, disposed on substrate 110 and abutting waveguide 120 side-on. Nanorods 505 and 510 may have the same structure and function as nanorod 115, and may be optically coupled with waveguide 120 in a manner similar to that of nanorod 115.”) disposed on the substrate in the optical path (Paragraph 0087 “in device 900 nanorods 115, 505, and 510 are received inside a waveguide 905 such that a footprint of nanorods 115, 505, and 510 on substrate 110 is positioned in the footprint of waveguide 905 on substrate 110.”), the light emitters each having a footprint on the substrate and extending away from the substrate laterally to the optical path (Fig. 9 shows the light emitters have a footprint on the substrate and they extend away from the substrate to the optical path), the light emitters each comprising a quantum well to emit an emitted light when the light emitter is electrically biased and exposed to the input light, (Paragraph 0055 “Nanorod 115 may be electrically biased to emit light,” Paragraph 0057 “As the input light is reflected back and forth, i.e. resonates, inside waveguide 120, some of the optical field of the resonating light may extend out of waveguide 120 and into nanorod 115. This resonating light may in turn stimulate nanorod 115 to emit further input light, which further input light may be optically coupled with and resonate inside waveguide 120.”) the emitted light from the plurality of the light emitters to form an output light having an amplitude greater than a corresponding amplitude of the input light (Paragraph 0059 “Consequently, the input light may be redirected to be output only from end 130 without causing significant stimulated emission of nanorod 115, since the input light will experience little to no reflecting back and forth within waveguide 120. In this way, device 100 can act as a super-luminescent diode (SLD or SLED).”), and;
wherein:
the light emitters each comprise a nanorod (Paragraph 0054 “a nanorod 115”); and
Dykaar does not teach the light emitters each having a refractive index higher than a corresponding refractive index of an environment outside of and abutting the light emitters each pair of neighboring nanorods are spaced from one another along the optical path by a distance being about (q + 1/4 )Λ, where Λ is a wavelength of the input light and q is an integer greater than or equal to zero.
However,
Dykaar teaches changing the difference in indexes of refractions between the nanorod and the environment (Dykaar Paragraph 0091)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the nanorods as taught by Dykaar by changing the index of refraction to be higher than the outside and the abutting light emitters. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification due to the fact changing the difference in the index of refraction is recognized in the prior art as a result-effective variable (see MPEP 2144.05 II) Changing the difference in the index of refraction allows for a variance in reflection at the barrier between the two materials. (Dykaar Paragraph 0091).
Fimland teaches the pitch of the nanorods can be varied. (Paragraph 0203 “Alternatively, the pitch and/or diameter of the NWs can be varied to change the nature of the light emitted.”)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the spacing between neighboring nanorods as taught by Dykaar by changing the spacing to be a distance of (q + 1/4 )Λ, where Λ is a wavelength of the input light and q is an integer greater than or equal to zero. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification due to the fact changing the spacing between the nanorods is recognized in the prior art as a result-effective variable (see MPEP 2144.05 II) Changing the spacing between the nanorods allows for a change in the wavelength emitted. (Fimland Paragraph 0203)
Regarding Claim 2, Dykaar teaches a shell around one or more of the light emitters, wherein the one or more light emitters have a core-shell geometry. (Paragraph 0091 “If this type of index-matching is not practicable, an anti-reflective layer may be disposed at the interface between the nanorods and the waveguide. In some examples, this anti-reflective layer may be disposed on at least a portion of the nanorods at the interface between the nanorods and the waveguide. Examples of such anti-reflective layers may include ¼ wave anti-reflective coatings, and the like.”)
Regarding Claim 3, Dykaar teaches the shell is to reduce reflectivity of the light emitters of the input light. (Paragraph 0091 “If this type of index-matching is not practicable, an anti-reflective layer may be disposed at the interface between the nanorods and the waveguide. In some examples, this anti-reflective layer may be disposed on at least a portion of the nanorods at the interface between the nanorods and the waveguide. Examples of such anti-reflective layers may include ¼ wave anti-reflective coatings, and the like.”)
Regarding Claim 4, Dykaar teaches the shell has a thickness of about A/4 measured along the optical path. (Paragraph 0091 “If this type of index-matching is not practicable, an anti-reflective layer may be disposed at the interface between the nanorods and the waveguide. In some examples, this anti-reflective layer may be disposed on at least a portion of the nanorods at the interface between the nanorods and the waveguide. Examples of such anti-reflective layers may include ¼ wave anti-reflective coatings, and the like.”)
Regarding Claim 5, Dykaar teaches a support material disposed on the substrate (Paragraph 0091 “an anti-reflective layer may be disposed at the interface between the nanorods and the waveguide.”), one or more of the light emitters being at least partially embedded in the support material, (As stated in Paragraph 0091 the anti-reflective layer embeds the light emitters) the support material being substantially transparent to the input light and the output light, (Paragraph 0091 teaches the anti-reflective layer which will be transparent to the light) and the support material having a corresponding refractive index being smaller than the refractive index of the light emitters. (As stated above in Claim 1 the light emitters each have a refractive index higher than a corresponding refractive index of an environment outside that environment outside being the support material. See Claim 1 for rationale.)
Regarding Claim 6, Dykaar teaches the support material is a non-waveguide for the input light and the output light. (Paragraph 0091 “an anti-reflective layer may be disposed at the interface between the nanorods and the waveguide.” The anti-reflective layer is a non-waveguide)
Regarding Claim 7, Dykaar teaches outer boundaries of the support material are non-totally-internally-reflective of the input light and the output light. (Paragraph 0091 teaches the support material is an anti-reflective layer as such it is non-totally-internally-reflective)
Regarding Claim 9, Dykaar teaches the light emitters terminate in respective ends opposite their footprints on the substrate, the ends extending out of the support material; (Paragraph 0087 “It is also contemplated that in some examples nanorods 115, 505, and 510 may extend beyond the top of the waveguide.”) and the optical device further comprising an electrical contact disposed on the support material and in electrical contact with the ends of the light emitters. (Paragraph 0071 “In addition, it is contemplated that nanorod 115 may comprise electrical contacts for connecting to a source of electrical power external to nanorod 115. For example, such electrical contacts may be added to one or more of the axial ends of the nanorods. For simplicity and ease of illustration, these electrical contacts are omitted from the drawings.” Paragraph 0087 “Such a design may be helpful for connecting an electrical power source to the top of each nanorod.”)
Claim 8 is rejected as being unpatentable over 35 U.S.C. 103 over Dykaar and Filmland in view of another embodiment of Dykaar.
Regarding Claim 8, Dykaar does not teaches one or more of the outer boundaries are one or more of:
roughened to reduce reflectivity with respect to the input light and the output light; and
angled to reduce reflectivity with respect to the input light and the output light.
However,
Another embodiment of Dykaar teaches one or more of the outer boundaries are one or more of:
roughened to reduce reflectivity with respect to the input light and the output light; and
angled to reduce reflectivity with respect to the input light and the output light. (Paragraphs 0108-109 “n device 1800, nanowall segments 1605, 1610, and 1615 are oriented such that the longitudinal dimension of their footprint on substrate 110 is at an angle to the longitudinal dimension of waveguide 1805. The angle between the nanowall segments and the longitudinal dimension of the waveguide may be selected to produce or enhance a given interaction between the nanowall segments and the light resonating in the waveguide. For example, the nanowall segments may be oriented at Brewster's angle to reduce a subset of the reflections of the resonating light from the nanowall segments.”)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the outer boundary as taught by Dykaar by having the outer boundary be angled as disclosed by another embodiment of Dykaar. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to reduce a subset of the reflections of the resonating light. (Dykaar Paragraph 0109)
Claims 10-11, 16-17 are rejected as being unpatentable over 35 U.S.C. 103 over Dykaar and Filmland in view of Hersee US 9106056.
Regarding Claim 10, Dykaar does not teach a subset of the light emitters furthest downstream along the optical path is to absorb the output light and emit a corresponding electrical signal when the subset is reverse-biased.
However,
Hersee teaches a subset of the light emitters furthest downstream along the optical path is to absorb the output light and emit a corresponding electrical signal when the subset is reverse-biased. (Col. 5 Paragraph 43-52 “In embodiments for reflection based operations, the first set of light emitters 122 can be "on" emitters that can illuminate a small area of the sample object 130. For example, the small area can have an area on an order of µm2. The emitted light 127 from the "on" light emitters 122 can then be reflected, scattered, and/or diffracted from the sample object 130 and the returned light, e.g., the reflected light 129, can then be collected immediately by the surrounding set of light emitters 124, which are electrically reverse-biased to function as photo-detectors.” As seen in Fig. 1A the first subset is near the center which is upstream and the second subset is farther away which is downstream)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the light emitters as taught by Dykaar by having a subset of light emitters furthest downstream along the optical path is to absorb the output light and emit a corresponding electrical signal when the subset is reverse-biased as disclosed by Hersee. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to build a digital image. (Hersee Col. 5 Line 41)
Regarding Claim 11, Dykaar does not teach a subset of the light emitters furthest downstream along the optical path is to modulate the output light and emit a corresponding electrical signal when the subset is reverse-biased.
However,
Hersee teaches a subset of the light emitters furthest downstream along the optical path is to absorb the output light and emit a corresponding electrical signal when the subset is reverse-biased. (Col. 5 Paragraph 43-52 “In embodiments for reflection based operations, the first set of light emitters 122 can be "on" emitters that can illuminate a small area of the sample object 130. For example, the small area can have an area on an order of µm2. The emitted light 127 from the "on" light emitters 122 can then be reflected, scattered, and/or diffracted from the sample object 130 and the returned light, e.g., the reflected light 129, can then be collected immediately by the surrounding set of light emitters 124, which are electrically reverse-biased to function as photo-detectors.” By absorbing the light it is modulated. As seen in Fig. 1A the first subset is near the center which is upstream and the second subset is farther away which is downstream)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the light emitters as taught by Dykaar by having a subset of light emitters furthest downstream along the optical path is to modulate the output light and emit a corresponding electrical signal when the subset is reverse-biased as disclosed by Hersee. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to build a digital image. (Hersee Col. 5 Line 41)
Regarding Claim 16, Dykaar teaches biasing a first subset of the light emitters (Paragraph 0055 “Nanorod 115 may be electrically biased to emit light,” Paragraph 0080 “device 100 is that device 500 comprises two additional nanorods 505 and 510, disposed on substrate 110 and abutting waveguide 120 side-on. Nanorods 505 and 510 may have the same structure and function as nanorod 115, and may be optically coupled with waveguide 120 in a manner similar to that of nanorod 115.”), the first subset to be exposed to the input light and emit the emitted light to form the output light (Paragraph 0055 “Nanorod 115 may be electrically biased to emit light,” Paragraph 0057 “As the input light is reflected back and forth, i.e. resonates, inside waveguide 120, some of the optical field of the resonating light may extend out of waveguide 120 and into nanorod 115. This resonating light may in turn stimulate nanorod 115 to emit further input light, which further input light may be optically coupled with and resonate inside waveguide 120.” Abstract “Moreover, the waveguide has an optical outlet to transmit at least some of the input light out of the waveguide to generate the output light.”)
Dykaar does not teach reverse biasing a second subset of the light emitters, the second subset of the light emitters to at least partially absorb the output light.
However,
Hersee teaches reverse biasing a second subset of the light emitters, the second subset of the light emitters to at least partially absorb the output light. (Col. 5 Paragraph 43-52 “In embodiments for reflection based operations, the first set of light emitters 122 can be "on" emitters that can illuminate a small area of the sample object 130. For example, the small area can have an area on an order of µm2. The emitted light 127 from the "on" light emitters 122 can then be reflected, scattered, and/or diffracted from the sample object 130 and the returned light, e.g., the reflected light 129, can then be collected immediately by the surrounding set of light emitters 124, which are electrically reverse-biased to function as photo-detectors.”)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the light emitters as taught by Dykaar by having a subset of light emitters furthest downstream along the optical path is to absorb the output light and emit a corresponding electrical signal when the subset is reverse-biased as disclosed by Hersee. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to build a digital image. (Hersee Col. 5 Line 41)
Regarding Claim 17, Dykaar does not teach the biasing the first subset of the light emitters comprises biasing the first subset of the light emitters furthest upstream along the optical path; and the reverse biasing the second subset of the light emitters comprises reverse biasing the second subset of the light emitters furthest downstream along the optical path, the second subset of the light emitters to absorb the output light and emit a corresponding electrical signal.
However,
Hersee teaches the biasing the first subset of the light emitters comprises biasing the first subset of the light emitters furthest upstream along the optical path; and the reverse biasing the second subset of the light emitters comprises reverse biasing the second subset of the light emitters furthest downstream along the optical path, the second subset of the light emitters to absorb the output light and emit a corresponding electrical signal. (Col. 5 Paragraph 43-52 “In embodiments for reflection based operations, the first set of light emitters 122 can be "on" emitters that can illuminate a small area of the sample object 130. For example, the small area can have an area on an order of µm2. The emitted light 127 from the "on" light emitters 122 can then be reflected, scattered, and/or diffracted from the sample object 130 and the returned light, e.g., the reflected light 129, can then be collected immediately by the surrounding set of light emitters 124, which are electrically reverse-biased to function as photo-detectors.” As seen in Fig. 1A the first subset is near the center which is upstream and the second subset is farther away which is downstream. See Claim 16 for rationale.)
Claim 12 is rejected as being unpatentable over 35 U.S.C. 103 over Dykaar and Filmland in view of Ishizawa et al. US 20230139048.
Regarding Claim 12, Dykaar teaches does not teach a cavity between two of the light emitters, the cavity in the optical path and open to a corresponding environment outside the optical device, the cavity to allow an analyte from the corresponding environment to enter the cavity and interact with one or more of the input light and the output light.
However,
Ishizawa teaches a cavity between two of the light emitters, (Fig. 1 shows a space between the light emitters 30) the cavity in the optical path (Paragraph 0068 “The light generated in the light-emitting layer 34 propagates in an in-plane direction through the first semiconductor layer 32 and the second semiconductor layer 36, forms a standing wave due to the effect of the first photonic crystal 50 and the second photonic crystal 52 that are optically coupled to each other, and receives a gain in the light-emitting layer 34 to generate laser oscillation.”) and open to a corresponding environment outside the optical device (Fig. 1 shows the cavity is open to the environment via hole 44), the cavity to allow an analyte from the corresponding environment to enter the cavity and interact with one or more of the input light and the output light. (Since there is the cavity is open to the environment there is nothing stopping an analyte from the environment to enter the cavity and interact with the light.)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device as taught by Dykaar by adding the cavity open to the environment as disclosed by Ishizawa. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to increase the optical confinement of the light. (Ishizawa Paragraph 0070)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding Claim 13, Dykaar does not teach A method of operating the optical device, the method comprising:
defining the input light as an intensity band moving over time along the optical path; and,
biasing a subset of the light emitters falling within the intensity band, the subset changing over time and along the optical path in alignment with the intensity band moving over time along the optical path.
Claims 14-15 are also allowable if rewritten to overcome the 112(b) rejection due to their dependency on Claim 13.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Dykaar US 20210098648 teaches many features found in Claim 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN SUTTON KOTTER whose telephone number is (571)270-1859. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00-5:00.
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, MinSun Harvey can be reached at 571-272-1835. 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.
/STEPHEN SUTTON KOTTER/Examiner, Art Unit 2828
/MINSUN O HARVEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2828