DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is responsive to Applicant’s response submitted 10 December 2025.
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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0299743 to Miller.
In regards to claim 1, Miller recites an optical multiplexer (Figures 2A & 2B) comprising at least three input optical waveguides, at least two directional couplers, and at least one output optical waveguide such that the waveguides including the input optical waveguides form an asymmetric shape with respect to a light traveling direction, the optical multiplexer further comprising at least one dummy waveguide (dotted rectangles) that is in a horizontally flipped shape of a waveguide located asymmetrically with respect to a center line of the directional couplers or a Mach-Zehnder interferometer (additional MZI) composed of a combination of two of the directional couplers. [0046-0050]
In regards to claim 2, Miller recites the dummy waveguide in the horizontally flipped shape is partially omitted.
In regards to claim 7, Miller recites n image projection device using the optical multiplexer. (Background)
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) 3-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0299743 to Miller as applied to claim 1 above.
In regards to claim 3, although Miller does not expressly recite a distance of the dummy waveguide from the center line of the directional couplers or the Mach-Zehnder interferometer is not less than 1 time and not more than 2.5 times a distance at which the dummy waveguide and the waveguide located asymmetrically with respect to the center line are symmetric, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. Furthermore, it would be advantageous for the dummy waveguide or the Mach-Zehnder interferometers to be placed at a distance not less than 1 time and not more than 2.5 times a distance from the symmetry line in order to equalize the path lengths and losses of the multiplexer. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have provided a distance of the dummy waveguide from the center line of the directional couplers or the Mach-Zehnder interferometer is not less than 1 time and not more than 2.5 times a distance at which the dummy waveguide and the waveguide located asymmetrically with respect to the center line are symmetric. In re Aller, 105 USPA 233; In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)
In regards to claim 4, although Miller does not expressly recites an input and the details of the light input, individual lasers at different wavelengths to provide the input signal is common in the optical art. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have provided at least red light, green light, and blue light.
In regards to claims 5 and 6, although Miller does not expressly recite the directional couplers are three in number or two in number, Applicant claims both three and two in number. Furthermore, it would have been known to scale the directional couplers to the number required for the desired output. Since Applicant claims a different number of directional couplers and further does not state a specific number to solve a stated problem or is for a particular purpose, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have provided the directional couplers to be three in number or two in number.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to U.S. Patent 7,421,156 to Liu have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-7 over Liu has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, with respect to U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0299743 to Miller have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues Miller fails to recite “the optical waveguides form an asymmetric shape with respect to a light traveling direction” and “the dummy waveguide that is in a horizontally flipped shape of a waveguide located asymmetrically with respect to a center line of the directional couplers or a Mach-Zehnder interferometer composed of a combination of two of the directional couplers”. However, the Examiner disagrees. Miller clearly shows in Figure 2A and 2B a dummy waveguide in a horizontally flipped shape of a waveguide and also located asymmetrically with respect to a center line of the direction couplers or Mach-Zehnder interferometers. Furthermore, Applicant has not expressly recited which of a multiple of directional couplers or Mach-Zehnder interferometers in the array of directional couplers or Mach-Zehnder interferometers is the center line referenced in the claim language. Additionally, Applicant has not expressly recited horizontally flipped in which direction and angle. Applicant has not provided sufficient recitation of a reference point or reference line to define the orientation as argued. Further, horizontally flipped can be flipped horizontally by different degrees, such as 180° or 90° over an arbitrary reference point/line not defined by the claim language.
Conclusion
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 TINA M WONG whose telephone number is (571)272-2352. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:30.
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.
/TINA WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights