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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on March 18, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s Amendment filed March 18, 2026 has been fully considered and entered.
Drawings
One (1) replacement sheet of drawings was filed on March 18, 2026.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the optical absorber integrated with a dielectric optical waveguide, as defined by claim 1, comprising a dielectric optical waveguide arranged in a spiral or folded-loop shape in space with an absorption material located on one side of the waveguide core or on two sides of the waveguide core, and a PN junction or PIN junction formed on the absorption material layer must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “tow” in line 10 of claim 1 should be – two--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 2, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “wherein the dielectric optical waveguide is arranged in a spiral or folded-loop shape in space” in lines 7-8 of the claim, and further recites “the absorption material layer located on one side of the dielectric optical waveguide core, or two absorption material layers located on two sides of the dielectrice3 optical waveguide core, respectively, with a distance between the dielectric optical waveguide core and each of the two absorption material layers” in lines 9-12 of the claim.
However, the disclosure, as originally filed, provides support for a spiral or folded-shape waveguide having an absorption material layer above (i.e. on top of) the waveguide core (see Figure 7, which illustrates a top down view), or an alternative waveguide core (20) having an absorption material (30) on one side (see Figure 4) or on two sides (see Figure 6). Thus, it appears that while the original claims were broadly written to cover multiple embodiments, the disclosure as originally filed does not support an embodiment with a spiral or folded-shape waveguide core having an absorption layer on a side or on two sides. The examiner notes that it’s not clear what shape an absorption layer provide on a side or on two sides of a spiral or folded-shape waveguide core would take as discussed below under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claims 2 and 7 inherently contain the deficiencies of any base and/or intervening claims from which they depend.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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, 2 and 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.
Regarding claim 1; the claim recites “wherein the dielectric optical waveguide is arranged in a spiral or folded-loop shape in space” in lines 7-8 of the claim, and further recites “the absorption material layer located on one side of the dielectric optical waveguide core with a distance therebetween, or two the absorption material layers located on two sides of the dielectric optical waveguide core, respectively, with a distance between the dielectric waveguide core and each of the two absorption material layers” in lines 9-12 of the claim.
However, the disclosure, as originally filed, provides support for a spiral or folded-shape waveguide having an absorption material layer above the waveguide core (see Figure 7, which illustrates a top down view), or alternative a waveguide core (20) having an absorption material (30) on one side (see Figure 4) or on two sides (see Figure 6). It is unclear what shape an absorption region provided on one or two sides of a spiral shaped waveguide or folded waveguide would take.
Would the absorption region also be spiral or folded shape to be provided along both sides of a similarly shaped core?
Would the absorption region be a straight region laterally positioned with respect to the spiral or folded shaped waveguide, thereby being more distant from some sections of the waveguide than other sections of the waveguide core and on a side or sides of a waveguide core region, but not actually on a side or sides of the waveguide core?
Clarification is required.
Claims 2 and 7 inherently contain the deficiencies of any base and/or intervening claims from which they depend.
The scope of claims 1, 2 and 7 is unclear as discussed above. As a result, a meaningful formulation of art rejections cannot be done at this time. See MPEP 2173.06 II, 2nd paragraph:… where there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. … a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims.
Therefore, claims 1, 2, and 7 have not been further considered with respect to prior art. This is not an indication of allowable subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 18, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant points to the limitations addressed by both the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and simply argues that the limitations are clear without answering the questions asked by the examiner.
The examiner disagrees.
Please point to the portion of the specification, as originally filed, that discloses the now claimed embodiment. Specifically, please point to the disclosed spiral or folded shape waveguide having an absorption region to one side or on two sides thereof.
Please explain what shape the absorption region takes on a lateral side of a spiral or a folded shape waveguide. Specifically, please answer the following questions:
Question 1: Would the absorption region also be spiral or folded shape to be provided along both sides of a similarly shaped core?
Question 2: Would the absorption region be a straight region laterally positioned with respect to the spiral or folded shaped waveguide, thereby being more distant from some sections of the waveguide than other sections of the waveguide core and on a side or sides of a waveguide core region, but not actually on a side or sides of the waveguide core?
Applicant argues that there is not restriction or shape requirement and that a person skilled int eh art would know this.
The examiner disagrees. The question is not what a person of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious in this case, but what does the application as originally filed clearly and concisely support.
Simply requiring a distance between the absorption layer and the dielectric waveguide core does not indicate how one is formed with respect to the other or indicate a shape thereof. All of the embodiments prior to figure 7 have an absorption layer that is positioned along a length of a core. In Figure 7, the absorption layer covers a spiral or a folded waveguide core. There are no Figures that illustrate an absorption layer to a side of a spiral or a folded waveguide core, and unlike the embodiment of Figure 7 where the layer is above the core and therefore equally distanced from a top surface of the entire core, a layer positioned to a side would not be equidistant for a particular surface of an entire core and therefore suggests a different structural relationship not envisioned by the application as originally filed. Please refer to the questions posed above by the examiner. It’s unclear if the device would function the same.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHELLE R CONNELLY whose telephone number is (571)272-2345. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9 AM to 5 PM.
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, Uyen-Chau Le can be reached at 571-272-2397. 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.
/MICHELLE R CONNELLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874