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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The prior art documents submitted by applicant in the Information Disclosure Statement filed on April 24, 2026 have all been considered and made of record (note the attached copy of form PTO-1449).
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s Amendment filed June 10, 2026 has been fully considered and entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 10, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Inada does not disclose "in a cross section cutting the plurality units along the first direction, a distance between the first reflecting surface and the second reflecting surface is different from each other among the plurality of optical waveguide units.
As the examiner explained during the interview of June 8, 2026, the examiner disagrees.
Figures 25A and 25B illustrate that a direction of a wave front may be controlled by applying a different phase change to each of the waveguides (10) in a waveguide array, wherein Figure 25A shows a flat phase front when no phase changes are applied and Figure 25B shows an angled wave front when each of the waveguides 10 has a different phase change associated with it.
The specification teaches that the phase changes may be controlled by controlling the thicknesses of the waveguide layers in each of the waveguides throughout the disclosure (see paragraphs 153-155). During the interview, the examiner pointed to paragraphs 7, 120-122, 130, 132, 136-138, 141-142, 144, 148-151, 153-155, 158, 162-163, 170-171, 268, 275, 283, 308, 318, 344, 372-373. Because the specification teaches that the phase may be controlled by controlling the thickness of each waveguide layer 20 in the waveguide element 10, it's clear that the application of a different phase shift (see the different phase shifts in Figure 25B) for each waveguide requires a different thickness in this instance. For this reason Applicant's arguments were not found persuasive by the examiner.
Applicant argues different teachings from different paragraphs of the reference, but does not focus on the relevant teachings in the paragraphs cited above and identified clearly during the interview.
While the reference does teach alternative means for apply the phase differences, i.e. a change in refractive index, etc., the alternative teachings are not relied upon for the rejection.
Applicant states that Inada does “does not disclose that such phase differences are generated by adjusting the distance between the two reflecting surfaces.”
The examiner disagrees.
A thicker waveguide core will increase an optical path length for light that is reflected at the boundaries of the core and the mirror layers, thus providing a corresponding phase change due to the increased and/or decreased path length differences.
The examiner notes that the prior art reference includes the same figures and much of the same description as the present application and has a common assignee and one common inventor.
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) 1-3, 5, 7-12, 18, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Inada et al. (US 2018/0224709 A1 hereinafter Inada).
Regarding claim 1, Inada discloses an optical device (100, Fig. 1) comprising
a plurality of optical waveguide units (first and second waveguides 1 and 10 form waveguide units; see paragraph 318; see Figures 1, 14, 25) arranged in a first direction (corresponding to “Y” Direction as shown in Figure 1), wherein;
each of the plurality of optical waveguide units (1/10) extends in a second direction (corresponding to “X” Direction as shown in Figure 1) crossing the first direction, and input light to the plurality of optical waveguide units propagates along the second direction (X);
each of the optical waveguide units (1/10) includes a first mirror (3/30) having a first reflecting surface (surface of 3/30),
a second mirror (4/40, Figure 14) having a second reflecting surface (surface of 4/40) facing the first reflecting surface, and
at least one optical waveguide region (2/20) located between the first mirror (3/30) and the second mirror (4/40), and
in a cross section (see Figure 25B) cutting the plurality of optical waveguides units (1/10) along the first direction (Y), a distance between the first reflecting surface (3/30) and the second reflecting surface (4/40) is different from each other among the plurality of optical waveguide units (1/10; with reference to Figure 25B, a different phase shift amount is applied to each of the waveguides 10, wherein the thickness of the optical waveguide layer 20 is adjusted to select a phase difference for each optical waveguide, such that different thicknesses of each waveguide layer 20 provide the different phase shifts illustrated in Figure 25B, and the differing thicknesses of the waveguide layers 20 inherently require that the distance between the first and second reflecting surfaces of each waveguide 10 is different for each waveguide because the thickness of the waveguide layer 20 is the separation distance between the first and second reflecting surfaces 30 and 40; see paragraph 153, “the emission angle θ changes largely according to the change in the thickness d of the optical waveguide layer 20”; see paragraphs 154-155; see paragraph 350, “the first adjusting element that adjusts the refractive index or thickness of the optical waveguide layer 20 in each waveguide element 10”; see paragraph 371 “the thickness of the optical waveguide layer 20 may be changed by changing the distance between the mirrors 30 and 40”; see paragraph 373).
Regarding claim 2, Inada discloses at least one of the optical waveguide units (10) includes at least one optical input waveguide (2’ Fig. 14) that is optically connected to the optical waveguide region (20) and that inputs light to the optical waveguide region (light path denoted by sawtooth line, Fig. 14).
Regarding claim 3, Inada discloses the optical input waveguide (2’) is connected to the optical waveguide region (20) via a mode converter (2, Fig. 14).
Regarding claim 5, Inada discloses an efficiency in optical coupling from the optical input waveguide (2’) in the at least one of the optical waveguide units (10) to the optical waveguide region (20) via the mode converter (2) is higher than or equal to 80% (Par. 161).
Regarding claims 7 and 8; the distance between the first reflecting surface (3/30) and the second reflecting surface (4/40) varies monotonously along the first direction (Y; see Figure 25B, wherein the different phase shifts for each waveguide 10 require a different thickness of the waveguide layer 20 and thus a different distance between the first reflecting surface 30 and the second reflecting surface 40 for each waveguide 10, and the differing thicknesses/separation distances vary monotonously with the monotonous variation in phase shift illustrated in Figure 25B), and the distance between the first reflecting surface and the second reflecting surface varies in regular steps along the first direction (Y; see Figure 25B, wherein the phase shifts vary in regular steps and the thicknesses of waveguide layers 20 / separation distances between first and second mirrors, 30 and 40, vary in proportion to the phase shifts).
Regarding claim 9, Inada discloses the optical device (100) according to claim 1, wherein the first mirror (30) has higher transmittance (Par. 7) than the second mirror (40).
Regarding claim 10, Inada discloses each of the optical waveguide units (10) includes a first electrode (1st E, see annotated Fig. 32C) and a second electrode (2nd E, see annotated Fig. 32C), and a liquid crystal material (Par. 358) between the first mirror (30) and the second mirror (40),
the optical waveguide region (20) is filled with the liquid crystal material (Par 358),
and a voltage applied between the first electrode (1st E) and the second electrode (2nd E) is changed to change a direction of light emitted (Par 362) from the optical waveguide region (20) via the first mirror (30) or an incident direction of light taken into the optical waveguide region via the first mirror (30).
PNG
media_image1.png
538
493
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Inada, Fig. 32 – annotated)
Regarding claim 11, Inada discloses the optical device (100) according to claim 1, further comprising: a first structure (1st Structure, see annotated Fig. 55) including the first mirror (30) included in each of the optical waveguide units (10);
a second structure (2nd Structure, see annotated Fig. 55) including the second mirror (40) included in each of the optical waveguide units (10);
and at least one support member (73, Fig. 55) that is located between the first structure (1st Structure) and the second structure (2nd Structure) and defines the distance between the first reflecting surface (1st RS) and the second reflecting surface (2nd RS) (Par. 441).
Regarding claim 12, Inada discloses Wherein the support member (73) is formed of an elastic material (suggested spacer composition materials have varying elastic moduli, see Par. 441).
PNG
media_image2.png
296
456
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(Inada, Fig. 55 – annotated)
Regarding claim 18, Inada discloses the first mirror (3/30) and the second mirror (4/40) as continuously provided to the plurality of optical waveguide units (1/10; see Figures 54B and 55) along the first direction (Y).
Regarding claim 19, Inada discloses the plurality of optical waveguide units (1/10) as including three or more optical waveguide units (Figures 1 and 14 show multiple waveguides in the Y direction, further 1’ is identified as a third waveguide).
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) 6 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inada et al. (US 2018/0224709 A1 hereinafter Inada).
Regarding claim 6, Inada discloses the optical device according to claim 5.
Inada fails to explicitly disclose an efficiency in coupling in the optical waveguide unit adjoining the at least one of the optical waveguide units is lower than 80%. However, Inada teaches a motivation and methodology for limiting optical coupling between adjacent waveguide units (Par 464-468). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the methods of limiting optical coupling between adjacent waveguide units taught by Inada in order to achieve optical coupling below 80% between adjacent waveguide units.
Regarding claim 20, the embodiment of Figures 1 and 14 fails to disclose the optical input waveguide as disposed between the first mirror and the second mirror. The embodiment of Figure 12, however, teaches the optical input waveguide (2) as disposed between the first mirror and the second mirror (3a and 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the optical input waveguide between the first mirror and the second mirror for efficient introduction of light into the waveguide (Paragraph [0284]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 13, 15, and 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.
Claims 17 and 21 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 4, while relevant existing prior art discloses the optical device claimed in claims 1-3, claim 4 claims that the mode converter of claim 3 explicitly “includes a grating, and the grating has a structure a refractive index of which varies periodically along a second direction intersecting the first direction.” While a mode converter of this type is not inherently novel, there is no known prior art that encompasses the combination of the mode converter, including the grating structure, of claim 4 with the preceding limitations set out in claims 1-3. Therefore, claim 4 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of claims 1-3.
Regarding claim 16, the prior art of record, which is the most relevant prior art known, does not disclose or render obvious an optical detection system, as defined by claim 16, wherein the light emitting from the light source is selectively supplied to only part of the plurality of optical waveguide units, while no light is supplied to remaining part of the plurality of optical waveguide units in combination with all of the other limitations of claim 16 and all of the limitations of base claim 1. Claims 13 and 15 are allowable by virtue of dependency from claim 16.
Regarding claim 17; the prior art of record, which is the most relevant prior art known, does not disclose or render obvious an optical device comprising a plurality of optical waveguide units arranged in a first direction, as defined by claim 17, wherein:
each of the plurality of optical waveguide units extends in a second direction crossing the first direction, and input light to the plurality of optical waveguide units propagates along the second direction,
each of the plurality of optical waveguide units includes
a first mirror having a first reflecting surface,
a second mirror having a second reflecting surface facing the first reflecting surface,
at least one optical waveguide region located between the first mirror and the second mirror,
a dielectric layer disposed over the second reflecting surface of the second mirror, and
in a cross section cutting the plurality of optical waveguide units along the first direction, a distance between the first reflecting surface and the second reflecting surface is different from each other among the plurality of optical waveguide units, and each of the plurality of optical waveguide units includes a plurality of optical waveguide regions defined by a plurality of partition walls that are disposed on the dielectric layer.
Claim 21 is allowably by virtue of dependency from claim 17.
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 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
Prosecution Insights