DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the amendment filed on July 6, 2024. In accordance with this amendment, claims 1-12 have been amended, claims 13-20 have been formally canceled, while new claims 21-28 have been added.
Claims 1-12 and 21-28 are pending and finally rejected herein, with claim 1 as the sole independent claim.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention (claims 13-20 have been formally canceled during prosecution), the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7 and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Tadanaga et al. US 2024/0353733 A1 (note that such features are found at least as early as published March 23, 2023 in corresponding WO 2023/042315 A1 (PTO-892 form reference N and English translation in U); while a PCT was filed in Japan on September 15, 2021). For the purpose of this office action citations are given to the US ‘733 document.
Tadanaga et al. US 2024/0353733 A1 teaches (ABS; Figs. 3(a), 3(b), 6(a), 6(b), 7(a) – 7(c), 8(a), 8(b); corresponding text, in particular paragraph [0046]; Claims) an apparatus (Figs. 7(a) – 7(c); see para [0046]) comprising: a photonic chip 70 which is capable of optical frequency conversion (ABS; Title; “Wavelength Conversion”; the overall “chip” can be the combination of substrate any other photonic features such as core(s) and/or cladding(s)), comprising: a substrate 71 having a surface; and a planar optical waveguide 72 disposed along the surface and comprising an optical core of periodically poled thin-film ferroelectric material 721 / 722 (can be lithium niobate, e.g., which is ferro-electric, periodically poled para [0002]), the optical core having a thickness and width (as in Fig. 7(a), para [0046]), and a length (right-to-left in Figs. 7(b) and 7(c)), the thickness varying along the length of the optical core (thickness up-and-down in Fig. 7(c)); wherein the width of the optical core varies along the length of the optical core (width up-and-down in Fig. 7(b)) in a manner correlated with variations of the thickness of the optical core along the length of the optical core, which clearly, fully meets Applicant’s claimed structural limitations for independent claim 1.
Regarding dependent claim 2, the width and thickness variations of the periodically poled features of Tadanaga can be considered as complementary to each other in a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of such language (Figs. 7(a) – 7(c)).
Regarding claims 3-4, both lithium niobate and lithium tantalate are given as material which can form the nonlinear material in Tadanaga (paras [0002], [0038]).
Regarding claim 5, the structure present in Tadanaga includes an overall structural design and is capable of maintaining quasi-phase matching (QPM; ABS; Background, Summary, [0041] – [0042]).
Regarding claim 6, the change in the width is about 8 – 16 um (or anywhere in between depending on the desired location), which meets 20 nm (para [0038]).
Regarding dependent claim 7, the sequence of different widths is shown along the length in Figs. 7(a) – 7(b); any number of widths are found at discrete location of the changes. Note the breadth of such language for the Examiner’s BRI. The frame of reference for such claiming is duly noted.
Regarding claim 9, the transition points between connected segments in Tadanaga can be considered as wedge-shaped, which meets all structure.
Regarding claim 10, the differing widths can be measure at any discrete point, and because such range can be 8 to 16 um, this “width” meets at least 20 nm.
Regarding claim 11, at least 10 different width segments are shown in Figs. 7(a) – 7(c), and the discretely measure “width” can be different depending on the measuring point of each “section.”
Regarding claim 12, at least two sections can differ by at least 20nm (at any discrete point there are many “widths” along the tapering decrease/increase), which meets all structure.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 8 and 21-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tadanaga et al. US 2024/0353733 A1, as applied to independent claim 1 above, and further in view of Wang et al. NPL “Second harmonic generation in nano-structured thin-film lithium niobate waveguides.”
Regarding base and sole pending independent claim 1, Tadanaga et al. US 2024/0353733 A1 teaches (ABS; Figs. 3(a), 3(b), 6(a), 6(b), 7(a) – 7(c), 8(a), 8(b); corresponding text, in particular paragraph [0046]; Claims) an apparatus (Figs. 7(a) – 7(c); see para [0046]) comprising: a photonic chip 70 which is capable of optical frequency conversion (ABS; Title; “Wavelength Conversion”; the overall “chip” can be the combination of substrate any other photonic features such as core(s) and/or cladding(s)), comprising: a substrate 71 having a surface; and a planar optical waveguide 72 disposed along the surface and comprising an optical core of periodically poled thin-film ferroelectric material 721 / 722 (can be lithium niobate, e.g., which is ferro-electric, periodically poled para [0002]), the optical core having a thickness and width (as in Fig. 7(a), para [0046]), and a length (right-to-left in Figs. 7(b) and 7(c)), the thickness varying along the length of the optical core (thickness up-and-down in Fig. 7(c)); wherein the width of the optical core varies along the length of the optical core (width up-and-down in Fig. 7(b)) in a manner correlated with variations of the thickness of the optical core along the length of the optical core. Noting claim 2, the width and thickness variations of the periodically poled features of Tadanaga can be considered as complementary to each other in a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of such language (Figs. 7(a) – 7(c)). Noting claim 7, the sequence of different widths is shown along the length in Figs. 7(a) – 7(b); any number of widths are found at discrete location of the changes. Note the breadth of such language for the Examiner’s BRI.
Regarding further dependent claim 8 (which depends from claim 7), and also additional and new dependent claims 21-24 (which depend from claim 2), and claims 25-28, Tadanaga US ‘733 does not expressly and exactly teach the configuration in which the optical core comprises the sequence of core segments has approximate constant widths along the length (note the embodiment as shown in Applicant’s Fig. 5), or the features of new dependent claims 21-28 for design choices for widths and thickness relationships along the length of the waveguide / core.
Wang et al. NPL teaches (ABS; Figs. 1a-1c, Fig. 2a; Entire document) a thin-film lithium niobate waveguide, which is capable of nonlinear frequency conversions (such as 2nd harmonics (“SHG”), Title) and in that at least Fig. 2a of Wang teaches the waveguide core regions being configured the comprise a sequence of core segments having different widths (see Fig. 2a which includes tapering and expanding in alternating successions from left-to-right, in the apparently rib/ridge type waveguide LN core). There different widths improve optical coupling along the length and allow deterministic nonlinear conversion efficiencies for the output. There are a number of types of design choices of the widths / thicknesses along the length of the waveguide / core that would be implied by Wang.
Since Tadanaga US ‘733 and Wang et al. NPL are both from the same field of endeavor, the purpose disclosed by Wang et al. NPL ki would have been recognized in the pertinent art of Tadanaga US ‘733.
A person having ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the current application would have recognized the teaching of Wang et al. NPL, to have the waveguide core region include a series / sequence of increasing and decreasing core segments widths and thicknesses, or ratios of such, into the base design of the nonlinear optical frequency converter of Tadanaga US ‘733, to allow for improved nonlinearity and ensure the optical output is in the proper usable stage after frequency/waveguide conversion. Further, it would have required no undue burden or unnecessary experimentation to arrive at such feature of the sequences to having constant, differing, or other design choices of the sized and shapes of width – to- thickness ratios and features (of the PPLN and/or LN). Additionally, the base independent claim 1 is fully anticipated by Tadanaga. See KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727 (2007). For these reasons, dependent claims 8 and 21-28 are found obvious over Tadanaga US ‘733 and further in view of Wang et al. NPL (henceforth “COMBO2”).
Regarding dependent claims 8 and 21-28, all such features are either found within the hypothetical combined features of COMBO2, or would have been obvious design choices requiring common skill. KSR. Therefore, all further claims 8 and 21-28 (from claims 7, 2, and/or 25+) would have been obvious over COMBO2, standing alone, and using the references themselves with mere common skill in the art. KSR.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see amendment with remarks (pages 7-10), filed July 6, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-12 under the non-final rejection prior art (Mason; Jayaraman; Takashi) for independent claim 1, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, all such rejections as dated on March 4, 2026 have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Tadanaga US '733. Because Applicant’s amendments to independent claim 1 have necessitated further search and consideration, this action is made FINAL.
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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: PTO-892 form reference O, which pertains to the state of the art on nonlinear optical wavelength converters configured as a waveguide on substrate.
Applicant's amendment dated July 6, 2026 has necessitated any 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 Daniel Petkovsek whose telephone number is (571) 272-4174. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 - 6 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.
/DANIEL PETKOVSEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874 August 19, 2026
Prosecution Insights