DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention I in the reply filed on 02/03/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Groups I and II are related. This is not found persuasive because Group II is not a process specially adapted for the manufacture of a product of Group I, e.g., not a process that manufactures multiple polymer layers of distinct refractive index ranges, and a special technical feature does not exist appear in both groups.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Applicant timely traversed the restriction requirement in the reply field on 02/03/2026.
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claim 1, upon which claim 3 depends, recites “the plurality of optical elements comprises an I/O grating, a 2D waveguide, and a spectral shaping element”, i.e., all three of claimed optical element. Claim 3 requires “one or more optical elements selected from the group consisting of: I/O gratings, tapered waveguides, waveguides, 2D waveguides, waveguide based optical splitters, waveguide based optical couplers, and spectral shaping elements”, which can conflict with and/or further broaden claim 1.
Claim 68 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claim 67, upon which claim 3 depends, recites “the plurality of optical elements comprises an I/O grating, a 2D waveguide, and a spectral shaping element”, i.e., all three of claimed optical element. Claim 68 requires “one or more optical elements selected from the group consisting of: I/O gratings, tapered waveguides, waveguides, 2D waveguides, waveguide based optical splitters, waveguide based optical couplers, and spectral shaping elements”, which can conflict with and/or further broaden claim 67.
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, 3, 4, 7-9, 17, 20, 67-69 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 102721431 A patent publication by Zhang et al. (copy and English translation thereof have been included) in view of CN 1147640 A patent publication by Yamagishi et al.
Regarding claim 1, Zhang teaches a polymer based photonic integrated circuit (Figs. 1, 2, including a polymer waveguide, see translation ¶[0017], [0018]) comprising: a first layer (core layer 7); and a second layer (upper cladding layer 4) on the first layer (7), wherein an interface between the first polymeric layer and the second polymeric layer is patterned with a relief pattern (e.g., various shapes and outlines of the boundary between the first and second layers 4, 7 as illustrated in Figs. 1-4) to form a plurality of optical elements; and wherein the plurality of optical elements comprises an I/O grating (broadband light signal is coupled into a first grating 1), a 2D waveguide (tapered transition waveguide 2), and a spectral shaping element (second grating 3 that functions as a combiner of an MZI) (See also description of the invention under ¶[0018] of the English translation).
While Zhang teaches the waveguide to be a “polymer waveguide”, Zhang does not specify the material(s) used for manufacture the first and second layers or their respective refractive index and/or optical loss. Yamagishi teaches using a polyimide to form an optical waveguide (Fig. 4) comprising a first polymeric layer (a lower cladding polyimide film 15), the first polymeric layer having a refractive index of from 1.3 to 1.8 at a wavelength of 1300 nm (refractive index of the film at wavelength 1300 nm is 1.6938 (TE mode) and 0.6182 (TM mode) and light transmission loss is 0.90dB/cm (TE) and 0.78dB/cm (TM mode)); and a second polymeric layer (a polyimide core layer 16) on the first polymeric layer, the second polymeric layer having a refractive index of from 1.4 to 2.0 at a wavelength of 1300 nm and an optical loss of at most 10 dB/cm at a wavelength of 1300 nm (refractive index of the film is 1.7814 (TE mode) and 1.5812 (TM mode) and light transmission loss is 0.90dB/cm (TE) and 0.41dB/cm (TM mode)), wherein the difference between the refractive index of the first polymeric layer and the refractive index of the second polymeric layer is at least 0.1 at a wavelength of 1300 nm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to select polyimide as the optical material for form the first polymeric layer in Zhang’s invention. The reason is Yamagishi teaches “a polyimide having excellent transparency, isotropy and anti-breaking performance (without breaking to produce in the forming process of the multilayer film, thus forming a multilayer film is easy, that is, polyimide has excellent processing performance), and can give an optical element with excellent optical characteristics.”
Furthermore, while, in the particular example of Yamagishi’s invention, the effective refractive index difference of TE mode (1.7814-1.6938 = 0.0876) is slightly below the >0.1 range claimed, Zhang also states that in order to improve the performance of the structure to realize the sensing sensitivity of the external refractive index, Δneff (the difference in effective refractive index of the core mode and the cladding mode) can be enlarged. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to perform routine experimentations on different polyimides (both disclosed by Yamagishi and other polyimides having suitable optical properties known in the art) to increase or appropriately maximize the effective refractive index difference between the core and cladding layers, so as to improve the performance of Zhang’s invention as stated above.
Regarding claims 3, 9, Zhang further teaches the plurality of optical elements comprise a spectral shaping elements (that realizes the function of an MZI).
Regarding claim 4, Yamagishi, as stated above, suggests using polyimides for both its excellent processing performance and optical characteristics.
Regarding claims 7, 8, Zhang discloses using the relief patterns (optical gratings 1, 3) but not its actual size parameters. However, the dimensions and period of the gratings are result-effective variables that determine the pattern and wavelength of diffracted light, and it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to perform routine experimentations to determine optimum or appropriate ranges of depth and width for the grating’s intended application, as an obvious manner of engineering choice. n re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)
Regarding claim 17, both Zhang and Yamagishi also teach using a lower cladding layer. (The thickness recitation is stated to be optional and therefore not considered for merit.)
Regarding claim 20, Zhang teaches a polymer based photonic integrated circuit (Figs. 1, 2, including a polymer waveguide, see translation ¶[0017], [0018]) comprising: a first layer (core layer 7); and a second layer (upper cladding layer 4) on the first layer (7), wherein an interface between the first polymeric layer and the second polymeric layer is patterned with a relief pattern (e.g., various shapes and outlines of the boundary between the first and second layers 4, 7 as illustrated in Figs. 1-4) to form a plurality of optical elements; and wherein the plurality of optical elements comprises an I/O grating (broadband light signal is coupled into a first grating 1), a 2D waveguide (tapered transition waveguide 2), and a spectral shaping element (second grating 3 that functions as a combiner of an MZI) (See also description of the invention under ¶[0018] of the English translation).
While Zhang teaches the waveguide to be a “polymer waveguide”, Zhang does not specify the material(s) used for manufacture the first and second layers or their respective refractive index and/or optical loss. Yamagishi teaches using a polyimide to form an optical waveguide comprising a first polymeric layer (a polyimide cladding layer 15, Fig. 4), the first polymeric layer having a refractive index of from 1.4 to 2.0 at a wavelength of 1300 nm (formed polyimide film has a thickness of 10 μm and a refractive index at wavelength 1300 nm of 1.6938 TE mode). (See at least Fig. 4 and description in the English translation.) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to select polyimide as the optical material for form the first polymeric layer in Zhang’s invention. The reason is Yamagishi teaches “a polyimide having excellent transparency, isotropy and anti-breaking performance (without breaking to produce in the forming process of the multilayer film, thus forming a multilayer film is easy, that is, polyimide has excellent processing performance), and can give an optical element with excellent optical characteristics.”
Regarding claim 67, Zhang teaches a polymer based photonic integrated circuit (Figs. 1, 2, including a polymer waveguide, see translation ¶[0017], [0018]) comprising: a first layer (core layer 7); and a second layer (upper cladding layer 4) on the first layer (7), wherein an interface between the first polymeric layer and the second polymeric layer is patterned with a relief pattern (e.g., various shapes and outlines of the boundary between the first and second layers 4, 7 as illustrated in Figs. 1-4) to form a plurality of optical elements; and wherein the plurality of optical elements comprises an I/O grating (broadband light signal is coupled into a first grating 1), a 2D waveguide (tapered transition waveguide 2), and a spectral shaping element (second grating 3 that functions as a combiner of an MZI) (See also description of the invention under ¶[0018] of the English translation).
While Zhang teaches the waveguide to be a “polymer waveguide”, Zhang does not specify the material(s) used for manufacture the first and second layers. Yamagishi teaches using a polyimide to form an optical waveguide (Fig. 4) comprising a first polymeric layer (a lower cladding polyimide film 15 having a refractive index of the film at wavelength 1300 nm is 1.6938 (TE mode) and 0.6182 (TM mode)); and a second polymeric layer (a polyimide core layer 16) on the first polymeric layer, the second polymeric layer having a refractive index of from 1.4 to 2.0 at a wavelength of 1300 nm and an optical loss of at most 10 dB/cm at a wavelength of 1300 nm (refractive index of the film is 1.7814 (TE mode) and 1.5812 (TM mode). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to select polyimide as the optical material for form the first and second, or core and cladding, polymeric layers in Zhang’s invention. The reason is Yamagishi teaches “a polyimide having excellent transparency, isotropy and anti-breaking performance (without breaking to produce in the forming process of the multilayer film, thus forming a multilayer film is easy, that is, polyimide has excellent processing performance), and can give an optical element with excellent optical characteristics.”
Regarding claims 68, 69, Zhang further teaches the plurality of optical elements comprise a spectral shaping elements (that realizes the function of an MZI).
Claim(s) 1, 10, 67, 70 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. PGPub 2001/0028769 A1 by Deacon in view of CN 1147640 A patent publication by Yamagishi et al.
Regarding claims 1, 67, Deacon teaches a polymer based photonic integrated circuit (Fig. 13, made of polymer consistent disclosure of Fig. 11, ¶[0125]-[[0127]) comprising: a first layer (waveguide layer including waveguides 1322, 1324, 1326); and a second layer (overcladding 1342) on the first layer, wherein an interface between the first polymeric layer and the second polymeric layer is patterned with a relief pattern (e.g., creating various shapes of the waveguides 1322, 1324, 1326) to form a plurality of optical elements (the respective optical waveguides 1322, 1324, 1326); and wherein the plurality of optical elements comprises an I/O grating (1330), a 2D waveguide (1322), and a spectral shaping element (resonator 1324).
While Deacon teaches the waveguide to be a “polymer waveguide”, Deacon does not specify the material(s) used for manufacture the first and second layers. Yamagishi teaches using a polyimide to form an optical waveguide (Fig. 4) comprising a first polymeric layer (a lower cladding polyimide film 15 having a refractive index of the film at wavelength 1300 nm is 1.6938 (TE mode) and 0.6182 (TM mode)); and a second polymeric layer (a polyimide core layer 16) on the first polymeric layer, the second polymeric layer having a refractive index of from 1.4 to 2.0 at a wavelength of 1300 nm and an optical loss of at most 10 dB/cm at a wavelength of 1300 nm (refractive index of the film is 1.7814 (TE mode) and 1.5812 (TM mode). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to select polyimide as the optical material for form the first and second, or core and cladding, polymeric layers in Deacon’s invention. The reason is Yamagishi teaches “a polyimide having excellent transparency, isotropy and anti-breaking performance (without breaking to produce in the forming process of the multilayer film, thus forming a multilayer film is easy, that is, polyimide has excellent processing performance), and can give an optical element with excellent optical characteristics.”
Regarding claims 10, 70, Deacon further teaches the spectral shaping element (the resonator 1324) includes a curved waveguide (on its left or right side, Fig. 13). While Deacon does not specify a specific range for a radius of the curved waveguide, it is commonly known in the art that the radius of a curved waveguide is a result effective variable for the waveguide’s bend loss, and it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to perform routine experimentations on the radius and/or curvature of the resonators, so as to optimize the bending loss in Deacon’s device.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. and Yamagishi et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. PGPub 2003/0176002 A1 (the ‘002 publication).
Regarding claim 5, Zhang and Yamagishi suggests using a polyimide optical waveguide circuit but does not state the polymeric layer(s) may be a hybrid organic-inorganic polymer. The ‘002 publication states that polymers (acrylate, polyimide, silicon oxynitride (SiON), and hybrid organic/inorganic sol-gel materials are all reasonable alternates among each other for forming optical waveguides components, ¶[0012]). It thus would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to perform routine experimentations on various materials, including using the hybrid sol-gel materials to form the first and second layers, as one of a finite number of identified and predictable solution in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13, 16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Relevant and analogous prior art fails to teach or further suggest coating the spectral shaping element with capture agents capable of capturing a specific molecule of interest, when considered in view of the rest of the limitations of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. USPub20220342219 discloses an optical apparatus with organic core material and multiple optical elements.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLIE PENG whose telephone number is (571)272-2177. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM - 6PM.
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, Thomas Hollweg can be reached at (571)270-1739. 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.
/CHARLIE Y PENG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874