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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 3 is 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 claim(s) contains 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 3 has been amended such that they now require the limitation “a plurality of add ports wherein the LCOS device is further adapted to selectively steer each wavelength channel along the switching axis for transmittal from one of the add ports to the common port”.
The specification describes a wavelength selective switch which comprises a common ports (402 and 404) and a plurality of Add or Drop ports (406-413) (paragraphs 28-29). The specification as originally filed does not teach or describe any embodiment which comprises both add and drop ports wherein the LCOS device simultaneously adapted to selectively steer each wavelength channel along the switching axis for transmittal from one of the add ports to the common port and selectively steer each wavelength channel along a switching axis that is orthogonal to the dispersive axis for transmittal from the common port to one of the drop ports.
As noted above, the specification as originally filed fails to teach a combination of add and drop ports with the LCOS device simultaneously adapted to converge light to the common port and split a signal from the common port. Consequently, the original specification fails to reasonably convey that the inventor(s) had possession of the invention as now claimed at the time of filing. This is a new matter rejection.
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, 2, 9, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chu et al. (US Pub. 20140363162, Chu).
As per claim 1, Chu teaches (in figures 10 and 11) a liquid crystal on silicon (LCOS) device (LCOS device 1010) adapted to selectively steer each wavelength channel along a switching axis (horizontal direction in figure 10) that is orthogonal to the dispersive axis (vertical direction in figure 10), the LCOS device comprising: a substrate (substrate 1102); a pair of electrodes including a first electrode (front electrode divided into strips 1012) and a second electrode (electrodes 1014), a two-dimensional array of pixels (electrodes 1014) extending in a first dimension (vertical direction in figure 10) along the dispersive axis and along a second dimension (horizontal direction in figure 10) along the switching axis; and a liquid crystal layer “variable refractive index material in LCOS device 1010) disposed between the first electrode and the second electrode, and configured to be drive-able into a plurality of electrical states by drive signals provided to the pixels of the second electrode; wherein the pixels include a rectangular profile having longer sides in the first dimension than in the second dimension, and wherein the two-dimensional array includes a pixel pitch of the pixels that is greater in the first dimension than in the second dimension (see figure 10 and paragraphs 114-115).
The cited embodiment does not explicitly teach that the LCOS device is used in a wavelength selective switch (WSS) device comprising: a common port, a dispersive element that disperses an input optical signal comprising a plurality of wavelength channels along a dispersive axis; a plurality of drop ports or that the second electrode mounted to a silicon substrate.
However, Chu teaches in an earlier embodiment (figures 8 and 9) providing a liquid crystal on silicon (LCOS) device (LCOS device 812) in a wavelength selective switch (WSS) device (router 800) comprising: a common port (input fibre 802) a dispersive element (wavelength demultiplexer 828) that disperses an input optical signal comprising a plurality of wavelength channels along a dispersive axis (vertical direction in figures 8 and 9); a plurality of drop ports (output fibre 818); and the liquid crystal on silicon (LCOS) device (LCOS device 812) is adapted to selectively steer each wavelength channel along a switching axis that is orthogonal to the dispersive axis for transmittal from the common port to one of the drop ports (paragraph 112-113), and explicitly teaches in another earlier embodiment (shown in figure 1) the LCOS device comprises: a silicon substrate (silicon substrate 102);a pair of electrodes including a first electrode (transparent counter electrode 108) and a second electrode (pixel electrodes 104), the second electrode mounted to the silicon substrate (silicon substrate 102), and a liquid crystal layer (adjustable refractive index material 106) disposed between the first electrode and the second electrode, and configured to be drive-able into a plurality of electrical states by drive signals provided to the pixels of the second electrode (paragraphs 83-86).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the LCOS device detailed in figures 10 and 11 in an wavelength selective switch device as taught in figures 8 and 9 in order to provide a means of optical switching and to form the substrate as a silicon substrate as taught in figure 1 since a prima facie case of obviousness exists for the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use (see MPEP 2144.07). Additionally, as it is noted that as the device in figures 10 and 11 is identified as a LCOS device (liquid crystal on silicon) on of ordinary skill in the art would assume that the substate is formed of silicon).
As per claim 2, Chu teaches (in figures 1 and 8-11) that the two-dimensional array of pixels has an aspect ratio that is non-standard display format (see figures 10 and 11).
As per claim 9, Chu teaches (in figures 10 and 11) a liquid crystal on silicon (LCOS) device (LCOS device 1010) adapted to selectively steer each wavelength channel along a switching axis (horizontal direction in figures 10 and 11) that is orthogonal to a dispersive axis (vertical direction in figures 10 and 11), the LCOS device comprising a two-dimensional array of independently drive-able pixels (electrodes 1014) disposed on a substrate, wherein a first pitch of the pixels in a first dimension across the two-dimensional array along the dispersive axis is greater than a second pitch of the pixels in a second dimension across the two-dimensional array along the switching axis (see figure 10 and paragraphs 114-115).
The cited embodiment does not explicitly teach that the LCOS device is used in a wavelength selective switch (WSS) device comprising: a multi-channel port for transmitting a multi-channel optical signal having a plurality of wavelength channels, a dispersive element that disperses the multi-channel optical signal along a dispersive axis according to frequency; a plurality of single-channel ports or that the independently drive-able pixels are disposed on a silicon substrate.
However, Chu teaches in an earlier embodiment (figures 8 and 9) providing a liquid crystal on silicon (LCOS) device (LCOS device 812) in a wavelength selective switch (WSS) device (router 800) comprising: a multi-channel port (input fibre 802) for transmitting a multi-channel optical signal having a plurality of wavelength channels, a dispersive element (wavelength demultiplexer 828) that disperses the multi-channel optical signal along a dispersive axis (vertical direction in figures 8 and 9) according to frequency; a plurality of single-channel ports (output fibre 818); and the liquid crystal on silicon (LCOS) device (LCOS device 812) is adapted to selectively steer each wavelength channel along a switching axis that is orthogonal to the dispersive axis for transmittal between the multi-channel port and one of the single-channel ports (paragraph 112-113) adapted to selectively steer each wavelength channel along a switching axis (in and out of the page in figures 8 and 9) that is orthogonal to the dispersive axis for transmittal between the multi-channel port and one of the single-channel ports, and explicitly teaches in another earlier embodiment (shown in figure 1) the LCOS device comprises: a silicon substrate (silicon substrate 102);a pair of electrodes including a first electrode (transparent counter electrode 108) and a second electrode (pixel electrodes 104), the second electrode mounted to the silicon substrate (silicon substrate 102), and a liquid crystal layer (adjustable refractive index material 106) disposed between the first electrode and the second electrode, and configured to be drive-able into a plurality of electrical states by drive signals provided to the pixels of the second electrode (paragraphs 83-86).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the LCOS device detailed in figures 10 and 11 in an wavelength selective switch device as taught in figures 8 and 9 in order to provide a means of optical switching and to form the substrate as a silicon substrate as taught in figure 1 since a prima facie case of obviousness exists for the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use (see MPEP 2144.07). Additionally, as it is noted that as the device in figures 10 and 11 is identified as a LCOS device (liquid crystal on silicon) on of ordinary skill in the art would assume that the substate is formed of silicon).
As per claim 13, Chu teaches (in figures 1 and 8-11) a total number of the pixels (electrodes 1014) in the first dimension (vertical direction in figure 10) along the dispersive axis is defined based upon a preset ratio of pixels/GHz of a frequency range by which optical signals are transmitted (paragraphs 113-115).
As per claim 15, Chu teaches (in figures 1 and 8-11) that a total number of the pixels (electrodes 1014) in the first dimension (vertical direction in figure 10) along the dispersive axis is defined based upon a preset ratio of pixels/GHz of a frequency range by which optical signals are transmitted (paragraphs 113-115).
Claim(s) 5, 6, 7, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chu et al. (US Pub. 20140363162, Chu) as applied to claims 1 and 9 respectively above and in further view of Collings et al. (US Pub. 20150286187, Collings).
As per claim 5, Chu does not explicitly teach that the pixel pitch in the first dimension is at least 1.3 times greater than the pixel pitch in the second dimension.
However, Chu teaches (in figures 1 and 8-11) that the pixel pith in the first dimension is a result effective variable in that it determines the size of the individual wavelength channels (paragraphs 113-115).
Additionally, Collings teaches (in figure 5) that the pixel pitch in the second dimension is is a result effective variable in that as the size of the pixels decreases the maximum deflection angle increases in addition to the fill factor losses (paragraph 86).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the LCOS such that the pixel pitch in the first dimension is at least 1.3 times greater than the pixel pitch in the second dimension, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. (See MPEP § 2144.05 (II) (A) and (B))
As per claim 6, Chu does not specifically teach that the pixels have a length in the first dimension that is between 8 µm to 12 µm; and the pixels have a length in the second dimension that is between 5 µm to 7 µm.
However, Collings teaches (in figure 5) that pixel dimensions (Δ) are result effective variables in that if the pixel dimensions are too small pixel the average reflectivity is reduced and if the pixel dimension is too large the number of available ports is reduced (paragraphs 83 and 84).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set the dimensions of the pixels to have a length in the first dimension that is between 8 µm to 12 µm; and a length in the second dimension that is between 5 µm to 7 µm, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. (See MPEP § 2144.05 (II) (A) and (B))
As per claim 7, Chu does not specifically teach that the two-dimensional array of pixels includes 1500 to 1900 pixels in the first dimension, and wherein the two-dimensional array of pixels includes 2500 to 3000 pixels in the second dimension.
However, Collings teaches (in figure 5) that the number of pixels (NxN) is a result effective variable in that as the number of pixels increases so does number of available output fibers but will also increase the fill factor losses (paragraph 86).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the LCOS such that the two-dimensional array of pixels includes 1500 to 1900 pixels in the first dimension, and wherein the two-dimensional array of pixels includes 2500 to 3000 pixels in the second dimension, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. (See MPEP § 2144.05 (II) (A) and (B))
As per claim 14, Chu does not explicitly teach that a minimum number of the pixels along the switching axis is proportional to the largest switching angle of the WSS device.
However, Collings teaches teach that in a LCOS light beam routing device a minimum number of the pixels along the switching axis is inherently proportional to the largest switching angle of the WSS device (paragraph 83 and 86).
Claim(s) 10-12 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chu et al. (US Pub. 20140363162, Chu) in view of Collings et al. (US Pub. 20150286187, Collings).
As per claim 10, Chu teaches (in figures 10 and 11) a liquid crystal on silicon (LCOS) device (LCOS device 1010) comprising: a substrate; a pair of electrodes including a first electrode (front electrode divided into strips 1012) and a second electrode (electrodes 1014), the second electrode mounted to the substrate and including a two-dimensional array of pixels (electrodes 1014) extending in a first dimension along the dispersive axis (vertical direction in figure 10) and in a second dimension along a switching axis (horizontal direction in figure 10) that is orthogonal to the dispersive axis; and a liquid crystal layer (“variable refractive index material” in LCOS device 1010) disposed between the first electrode and the second electrode and configured to be drive-able into a plurality of electrical states by drive signals provided to the pixels of the second electrode to selectively steer each wavelength channel along the switching axis (see figure 10 and paragraphs 114-115).
The cited embodiment does not explicitly teach that the LCOS device is used in a wavelength selective switch (WSS) device comprising: a dispersive element that disperses optical channels along a dispersive axis; that the liquid crystal layer configured to be drive-able into a plurality of electrical states by drive signals provided to the pixels of the second electrode to selectively steer each wavelength channel along the switching axis for transmittal between two of a plurality of optical ports, wherein a pitch of the pixels in one or two of the first dimension and the second dimension across the two-dimensional array is defined based on one or more characteristics of the WSS device or that the second electrode mounted to a silicon substrate.
However, Chu teaches in an earlier embodiment (figures 8 and 9) providing a liquid crystal on silicon (LCOS) device (LCOS device 812) in a wavelength selective switch (WSS) device (router 800) comprising: a dispersive element (wavelength demultiplexer 828) that disperses optical channels along a dispersive axis (vertical direction in figures 8 and 9); wherein the liquid crystal on silicon (LCOS) device (LCOS device 812) is used in switching optical channels between a plurality of optical ports (output fibre 818) the LCOS device configured to be drive-able into a plurality of electrical states by drive signals provided to the pixels of the second electrode to selectively steer each wavelength channel along the switching axis for transmittal between two of a plurality of optical ports (paragraph 112-113), and explicitly teaches in another earlier embodiment (shown in figure 1) the LCOS device comprises: a silicon substrate (silicon substrate 102);a pair of electrodes including a first electrode (transparent counter electrode 108) and a second electrode (pixel electrodes 104), the second electrode mounted to the silicon substrate (silicon substrate 102), and a liquid crystal layer (adjustable refractive index material 106) disposed between the first electrode and the second electrode, and configured to be drive-able into a plurality of electrical states by drive signals provided to the pixels of the second electrode (paragraphs 83-86).
Additionally, Collings teaches (in figure 5) that pixel pitch (sum of dimensions Δ of pixels and interpixel gap g) determines the number of ports able to switched to and sets the fill factor losses (paragraphs 83 and 84).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the LCOS device detailed in figures 10 and 11 in an wavelength selective switch device as taught in figures 8 and 9 in order to provide a means of optical switching and to form the substrate as a silicon substrate as taught in figure 1 since a prima facie case of obviousness exists for the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use (see MPEP 2144.07) and to set the pitch of pixels based on the required number of ports and the acceptable amount of fill factor losses in order to optimize the device. Additionally, as it is noted that as the device in figures 10 and 11 is identified as a LCOS device (liquid crystal on silicon) on of ordinary skill in the art would assume that the substate is formed of silicon).
As per claim 11, Chu in view of Collings teaches a shape of the pixels is defined based on the one or more characteristics of the WSS device (Collings teaches that sum of dimensions Δ of pixels and interpixel gap g determines the number of ports able to switched to and sets the fill factor losses paragraphs 83 and 84).
As per claim 12, Chu in view of Collings teaches that as the one or more characteristics, the pitch of the pixels is defined based on at least one of: a number of optical ports; a position of optical ports; an overall size of the WSS device; a target power consumption value of the WSS device; a number of optical channels; and a bandwidth of collective optical channels to be switched by the WSS device (Collings teaches that sum of dimensions Δ of pixels and interpixel gap g determines the number of ports able to switched to and sets the fill factor losses paragraphs 83 and 84).
As per claim 16, Chu teaches (in figures 1 and 8-11) that a total number of the pixels (electrodes 1014) in the first dimension (vertical direction in figure 10) along the dispersive axis is defined based upon a preset ratio of pixels/GHz of a frequency range by which optical signals are transmitted (paragraphs 113-115).
As per claim 17, Chu in view of Collings teaches that a minimum number of the pixels along the switching axis is proportional to the largest switching angle of the WSS device (see paragraph 83 and 86 of Collings).
As per claim 18, Chu in view of Collings teaches that as the one or more characteristics, a number of the pixels extending in the second dimension along the switching axis is defined by a range of switching angles required to switch optical channels between optical ports of the WSS device (see paragraph 83 and 86 of Collings).
As per claim 19, Chu in view of Collings teaches that as the one or more characteristics, a number of the pixels extending in the second dimension along the switching axis is defined by a port isolation requirement between adjacent ones of optical ports the WSS device (see paragraphs 106-110 of Collings).
As per claim 20, Chu in view of Collings teaches that as the one or more characteristics, dimensions of the pixels extending in the second dimension along the switching axis is defined by one or more of desired frame rates, data rates, and pixel level resolution of the WSS device (see paragraphs 88-91 of Collings).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-3, 5-7, 9-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ALEXANDER P GROSS whose telephone number is (571)272-5660. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-6pm EST.
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, Jennifer Carruth can be reached at (571) 272-9791. 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.
/ALEXANDER P GROSS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights