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 document(s) submitted by applicant in the Information Disclosure Statement filed on 3/27/2026 have all been considered and made of record (Note the attached copy of form PTO-892).
Inventorship
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's Amendment filed 12/23/2025 has been fully considered and entered.
The objections to the drawings, which were set forth in the Office Action mailed 9/24/2025, have been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s Amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 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.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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) 1-4, 6-7, and 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lenef et al. in US 20230400636 A1 (hereinafter "Lenef") in view of Lee et al. in “Reduced optical losses in MOCVD grown lithium niobate thin films on sapphire by controlling nucleation density”, Journal of Crystal Growth, Volume 186, Issue 4, 1998, Pages 594-606 (hereinafter "Lee").
Regarding claim 1, Lenef discloses an optical coupler for coupling a plurality of visible light beams having different wavelengths (see Para. 126 and Fig. 12), the optical coupler comprising:
an optical coupling function layer (the layers above substrate layer 2 in Fig. 1H are interpreted as the optical coupling function layer) formed on a main surface of the substrate (substrate layer 2),
wherein the optical coupling function layer includes: one or more stages (combining regions 17 in Fig. 12 are interpreted as stages) of multimode-interference-type optical coupling parts (the disclosed parts may be used for MMIs; see Para. 47); and optical-input-side waveguides (branches 15 and 16 in Fig. 12) and optical-output-side waveguides (any branch after two or more branches merge, including the final output branch 18) which are connected to the one or more stages of multimode-interference-type optical coupling parts (see Fig. 12), and
wherein the multimode-interference-type optical coupling parts (the disclosed parts may be used for MMIs; see Para. 47), the optical-input-side waveguides (branches 15 and 16 in Fig. 12), and the optical-output-side waveguides (any branch after two or more branches merge, including the final output branch 18) are made of a lithium niobate film (see Para. 25 and note claim 2; Note that a “layer” is interpreted as a film).
Lenef does not explicitly teach:
a substrate consisting of a sapphire single crystal; and
wherein the multimode-interference-type optical coupling parts are in direct contact with the substrate.
However, Lenef suggests:
a sapphire substrate material (Al2O3 is also sapphire; see Para. 50 and 53; see claim 12; note that );
single crystal substrate materials (see Para. 50); and
that multimode-interference-type optical coupling parts may be in direct contact with the substrate (i.e., that Lenef’s interlayer is not a required feature in all embodiments, as suggested by Para. 6 where some embodiments, not all, are coated with a transparent interlayer; Para. 7 states the waveguide layer is deposited on the substrate and does not identify that there is an interlayer present; Para. 46and claim 11 disclose that the waveguide is a multimode waveguide; Para. 53 identifies that “at least one embodiment” has an interlayer but does not disclose that all embodiments have an interlayer; Claim 10 does not require an interlayer; see also MPEP 2123).
Lee teaches that single crystal sapphire substrate with directly contacting lithium niobate waveguides was already known (see Abstract and Introduction).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the materials of Lee in the optical coupler arrangement of Lenef for the purpose of using materials with excellent optical properties thereby maintaining high optical quality while reducing the number of materials needed and increasing the ease of manufacturing, and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 2, Lenef/Lee discloses the optical coupler according to claim 1 as discussed above, wherein any one of the one or more stages of multimode-interference-type optical coupling parts (the disclosed parts may be used for MMIs; see Para. 47) is a multimode-interference-type optical coupling part having two inputs and one output (Figure 12 has at least 2 input branches 15 and 16 and one output branch 18).
Regarding claim 3, Lenef/Lee discloses the optical coupler according to claim 1 as discussed above, wherein at least one of the one or more stages (17) of multimode-interference-type optical coupling parts (the disclosed parts may be used for MMIs; see Para. 47) has a trapezoidal shape in a cross-section cut in a direction perpendicular to a light travel direction (see Fig. 9 with waveguide 9; see Para. 113 and 117; Note light travels within the waveguide and the shown cross-section is perpendicular to this direction of light travel).
Regarding claim 4, Lenef/Lee discloses the optical coupler according to claim 3 as discussed above, but fails to teach that a tilt angle of the trapezoidal shape is 40° to 85°. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected any angle, including 40° to 85°, for the purpose of optimizing the device since it is known that extremely vertical (~90°) sidewalls can increase propagation losses due to effects from sidewall roughness and since shallow (under ~45°) sidewalls may result in leakage due to a lapse in total internal reflection, and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Additionally, there are a finite number of angles to try (0° to 90°) and a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been able to try all angles (0° to 90°) and determine which is most optimized for any particular wavelength. See MPEP 2143(I)(E). It has also been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)
Regarding claim 6, Lenef/Lee discloses the optical coupler according to claim 1 as discussed above, wherein a slab portion (Fig. 5 and 10A-10C show that there is a portion of the waveguide layer 4 forming a small slab portion underneath the channels 8 and this small portion is interpreted as the slab portion and is between the trapezoidal portion of waveguide 4 and the substrate; this small slab portion is best highlighted as being about 1.08 μm or 1.09 μm in Fig. 10C) is provided in at least a part of the optical-input-side waveguides and the optical-output-side waveguides (this small slab portion necessarily exists underneath all waveguide cores and channels and above the surface of substrate layer and is interpreted as being a part of the input and output branches 15, 16, and 18).
Regarding claim 7, Lenef/Lee discloses the optical coupler according to claim 1 as discussed above, wherein a bending portion (a bending portion is interpreted as a curved or curving structure; See Para. 102, 122, 126) is provided in at least a part of the optical-input-side waveguides and the optical-output-side waveguides (Fig. 12 shows that all input branches 15 have significant curvature).
Regarding claim 9, Lenef/Lee discloses the optical coupler according to claim 2 as discussed above, comprising two or more stages (17) of multimode-interference-type optical coupling parts (the disclosed parts may be used for MMIs; see Para. 47),
wherein a first-stage multimode-interference-type optical coupling part (the first combining region 17 in Fig. 12) couples visible light (see Para. 45; note Para. 65 discusses that particular colors may be used in their device; see also Para. 124) of a wavelength A (λ1) and visible light of a wavelength B (λ2) and a second-stage multimode-interference-type optical coupling part (the second combining region 17 in Fig. 12) couples light obtained by coupling the visible light of the wavelength A (λ1) and the visible light of the wavelength B (λ2) with visible light of a wavelength C (λN-1).
Regarding claim 10, Lenef/Lee discloses the optical coupler according to claim 9, but fails to explicitly teach that the wavelength A is greater than the wavelength B and the wavelength A is greater than the wavelength C. However, the claimed optical coupler does not require that the structure of the optical coupler uses light sources of specific wavelengths as specific inputs, only that the optical coupler be “for coupling a plurality of visible light beams having different wavelengths”. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the wavelength A is greater than the wavelength B and the wavelength A is greater than the wavelength C for intended use. Further, since Lenef’s device has been shown to meet the optical coupler of claim 2 above, it is not required to show that any particular wavelength must be in any particular branch, and thus the limitations of claim 10 are considered to be intended use of the optical coupler. It has been held that “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does” (Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc. 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990)); that a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim (Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)); and that if a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the preamble, then it meets the claim (In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997)). See MPEP § 2111.02, II and MPEP § 2114, II.
Regarding claim 11, Lenef discloses a visible light source module (radiation emitting device 23 is interpreted as a light source module; visible light is identified in Para. 53) comprising:
the optical coupler according to claim 1 as discussed above; and
a plurality of visible laser light sources (laser diodes 24) configured to output visible light coupled by the optical coupler (see Fig. 12).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lenef et al. in US 20230400636 A1 (hereinafter "Lenef") in view of Lee et al. in “Reduced optical losses in MOCVD grown lithium niobate thin films on sapphire by controlling nucleation density”, Journal of Crystal Growth, Volume 186, Issue 4, 1998, Pages 594-606 (hereinafter "Lee") as applied above, and in view of Sugiyama in US 20190285815 A1 (hereinafter "Sugiyama").
Regarding claim 8, Lenef/Lee discloses the optical coupler according to claim 2 as discussed above, wherein, in two optical-input-side waveguides (15 and 16; see Fig. 12) and one optical-output-side waveguide (18; see Fig. 12) connected to the multimode-interference-type optical coupling part (the disclosed parts may be used for MMIs; see Para. 47) of at least one of the one or more stages (17; see Fig. 12) of multimode-interference-type optical coupling parts (the disclosed parts may be used for MMIs; see Para. 47), but fails to teach that the two optical-input-side waveguides have different widths and the one optical-output-side waveguide has the same width as the optical-input-side waveguide having a narrower width between the two optical-input-side waveguides.
Sugiyama teaches in a similar device that the two optical-input-side waveguides have different widths and the one optical-output-side waveguide has the same width as the optical-input-side waveguide having a narrower width between the two optical-input-side waveguides (see Fig. 4C; see Para. 58-59; note that each side of the MMI coupler has both a narrow branch and a wide branch).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the waveguide widths of Sugiyama in the optical coupler of Lenef for the purpose of adjusting the branching/coupling ratio thereby achieving balanced output levels of the waveguide.
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lenef et al. in US 20230400636 A1 (hereinafter "Lenef") in view of Lee et al. in “Reduced optical losses in MOCVD grown lithium niobate thin films on sapphire by controlling nucleation density”, Journal of Crystal Growth, Volume 186, Issue 4, 1998, Pages 594-606 (hereinafter "Lee") as applied above, and in view of Okamoto in US 20170052423 A1 (hereinafter "Okamoto").
Regarding claim 12, Lenef/Lee discloses an optical coupler according to claim 1 as discussed above, but fails to teach that it has an optical modulation function.
Okamoto teaches a Mach-Zehnder-type optical modulator (modulator 30; see Para. 170 and Fig. 8).
Combining the two devices would result in the Mach-Zehnder-type optical modulator connected to a similar optical coupler (substrate 301 and buffer layer 304 are interpreted as an optical coupler; see Fig. 7-8) and configured to guide a plurality of visible light beams output from a plurality of visible laser light sources to the optical coupler (both Lenef and Okamoto teach at least 3 wavelengths).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the modulators of Okamoto in the optical coupler of Lenef for the purpose of independently controlling the phase and/or amplitude thereby achieving a device capable of improved visual performance.
Regarding claim 13, Lenef/Lee/Okamoto discloses a visible light source module comprising:
the optical coupler (Lenef) with the optical modulation function (Okamoto, as combined above) according to claim 12 as discussed above; and
a plurality of visible laser light sources configured to output visible light (Lenef and Okamoto teach a variety of laser light sources: Lenef, Fig. 12 and Para. 126; Okamoto, Fig. 7-8 and Para. 79) to be coupled by the optical coupler with the optical modulation function (a result naturally obtained from the combined device).
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.
This prior art, made of record, but not relied upon, is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure since the following references have similar structure and/or use similar structure and/or similar optical elements to what is disclosed and/or claimed in the instant application:
US 20210072616 A1 discloses lithium niobate waveguides on sapphire.
US 20220155620 A1 discloses lithium niobate waveguides on sapphire.
CN 105068189 A discloses a multi-stage MMI-type device
CN 1508997 A discloses a similar multi-stage device.
JP 2023034575 A discloses a similar multi-stage device.
EP 1302793 A2 discloses a similar device.
CN 101076749 A discloses a similar device.
WO 2006051981 A1 discloses a similar device.
WO 2010010878 A1 discloses a similar device.
JP 2013250403 A discloses a similar device.
JP 2011164388 A discloses a similar device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARBY M THOMASON whose telephone number is (703)756-5817. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 8am-5pm.
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.
/DARBY M. THOMASON/Examiner, Art Unit 2874
/UYEN CHAU N LE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights