DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the election and amendment filed on January 22, 2026. In accordance with this amendment, minor informalities have been corrected by Applicant in dependent claims 7, 10, and 11.
Claims 1-20 remain pending (claims 13-20 are withdrawn from consideration as being related to a non-elected method Group). Claims 1-12 are examined herein in a 1st office action on the merits, 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’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-12, in the reply filed on January 22, 2026, is acknowledged. Claims 13-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, 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).
Information Disclosure Statement
The prior art documents submitted by Applicant in the Information Disclosure Statements filed on July 10, 2025 and February 12, 2024, have been considered and made of record (note attached copy of forms PTO-1449).
Drawings
The original drawings (five (5) pages) were received on January 16, 2024. These drawings are acknowledged.
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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mason et al. US 2007/0297732 A1.
Mason et al. US 2007/0297732 A1 teaches (ABS; Figs. 8A, 8D, 8E; corresponding text, in particular paragraphs [0043], [0091] - [0094], [0098], [0102], [0111]; Claims, notably 1, 19, and 26-33) an apparatus (Fig. 8A) comprising: a photonic chip for optical frequency conversion (ABS; “nonlinear optical waveguide”, which as formed in combination meets a “photonic chip” language, see Fig. 8A overall element 800), comprising: a substrate 806 having a surface; and a planar optical waveguide 802 (rib or ridge optical waveguide, at “h” height; see para [0094]) disposed along the surface (see Fig. 8A) and comprising an optical core of periodically-poled thin-film ferroelectric material (paras [0030], [0084], [0091], [0094]), the optical core having a thickness “h” (note the frame-of-reference for Applicant’s Figs. is the “height” or “thickness” direction of the waveguide) and a width (see Fig. 8A Mason for left-to-right for “width”), the thickness varying along the optical waveguide (thickness or height varies at 809A / 809B, wherein the width “w” (left-to-right in Mason Fig. 8A) of the optical core (also) varies along the optical waveguide in a manner correlated with the variations of the thickness of the optical core along the optical waveguide (with the ridge height “h” decreasing or increasing; the correlated ridge width “w” also increases or decreases; Mason claims 1 and 10), which clearly, fully meets Applicant’s claimed structural limitations of sole examined independent claim 1.
Regarding dependent claim 2, see Mason claim 19 and Fig. 8A, which represent a complementary fashion of width relationship to height.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, para [0043] teaches PPLN for lithium niobate; while paras [0093] – [0094] teach lithium tantalate for the optical waveguide / core materials.
Regarding claim 5, the width of Mason Fig. 8A varies and is functionally capable to maintain quasi phase-matching along the waveguide for an input pump and resultant light generated by frequency conversion (para [0043] and [0094]).
Regarding claim 6, see Mason paras [0098], [0102] and claims 26-32 for the dimensions of at least 20 nm variation in width.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jayaraman et al. WO 2023/158635 A1 (cited in the IDS dated July 10, 2025).
Jayaraman et al. WO 2023/158635 A1 teaches (ABS; Figs. 5, 7, 10; corresponding text, in particular paragraphs [0052], [0061]; Claims) an apparatus (Fig. 10) comprising: a photonic chip for optical frequency conversion (Title, ABS; frequency doubling from a fundamental laser through an optical (nonlinear) waveguide, the formation of which in combination meets a “photonic chip” language, see Fig. 10 overall element along length), comprising: a substrate 660 / 670 having a surface; and a planar optical waveguide 680 (ridge-type optical waveguide, Fig. 10 has a ridge or rib) disposed along the surface (see Fig. 10) and comprising an optical core of periodically-poled thin-film ferroelectric material (element 680, note para [0061]), the optical core having a thickness (note the frame-of-reference for Applicant’s Figs. is the “height” or “thickness” direction of the waveguide) and a width (see Fig. 10 Jayaraman), the thickness varying along the optical waveguide (thickness or height varies in the ridge / rib area as the height is different from the rest of 680, some “thicknesses” are varied in relation to other “thicknesses” (in center)), wherein the width (left-to-right in Jayaraman Figs. 5 and 10) of the optical core (also) varies along the optical waveguide in a manner correlated with the variations of the thickness of the optical core along the optical waveguide (with the ridge or rib, the width is narrower at this area near 680, being both vary and correlated to each other in the same zone; Fig. 10; claim 1), which clearly, fully meets Applicant’s claimed structural limitations of sole examined independent claim 1.
Regarding dependent claim 2, see Jayaraman Fig. 10 and para [0061], which represent a complementary fashion of width relationship to height.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, para [0061] teaches PPLN for lithium niobate; while para [0052] teaches lithium tantalate for the optical waveguide / core materials.
Regarding claim 5, the width of Jayaraman Fig. 10 varies and is functionally capable to maintain quasi phase-matching along the waveguide for an input pump and resultant light generated by frequency conversion (para [0052]).
Claims 1-4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takashi JP – 2008224708 – A (cited in the attached PTO-892 as form references O and U (English translation)).
Takashi JP – 2008224708 – A teaches (ABS; Figs. 1a, 1b, 3a, 3b; corresponding text, see English translation; Claims) an apparatus (Fig. 1a) comprising: a photonic chip for optical frequency conversion (ABS; “optical wavelength conversion element” which is formed on a featured lower substrate 2 and other intervening layer(s) 3 and 4, in combination meets a “photonic chip” language, see Fig. 1a overall element “1”), comprising: a substrate having a surface (element 4 is a “substrate” upon which the optical element(s) are formed); and a planar optical waveguide 8 (ridge-type optical waveguide, ABS) disposed along the surface (see Fig. 1a) and comprising an optical core of periodically-poled thin-film ferroelectric material (on pg. 4 of the English translation, many examples of ferroelectric and periodically-poled nonlinear optical materials are given, at least lithium niobate and lithium tantalate; see pg. 4 center starting “the material constituting the optical waveguide…”), the optical core having a thickness (note the frame-of-reference for Applicant’s Figs. is the “height” or “thickness” direction of the waveguide) and a width (see Fig. 1a Takashi), the thickness varying along the optical waveguide (thickness or height varies in the curved shape, some “thicknesses” are varied in relation to other “thicknesses” (top most in center)), wherein the width (left-to-right in Takashi Fig. 1a) of the optical core (also) varies along the optical waveguide in a manner correlated with the variations of the thickness of the optical core along the optical waveguide (with the curving / arced feature in Fig. 1a of Takashi, the thickness and the width both vary as they curve and are correlated), which clearly, fully meets Applicant’s claimed structural limitations of sole examined independent claim 1.
Regarding dependent claim 2, the width of Takashi’s waveguide core 8 varies in a complementary fashion to the thickness (as they both change on the curve).;
Regarding claims 3-4, pg. 4 of the English translation of Takashi teaches both lithium niobate and lithium tantalate; see center of page starting “the material constituting the optical waveguide…”, which meets all structure for the ferroelectric.
Regarding claim 6, because the overall ridge width of Takashi is given as 4-5 micron (pg. 4 English translation), the overall curvature changes approximately at least half that amount in the semi-circle (2-2.5 micron). Therefore, an extremely small amount of 20 nm change is met by Takashi based on the drawings, merely 0.02 micron.
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 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mason et al. US 2007/0297732 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 sole examined independent claim 1, Mason et al. US 2007/0297732 A1 teaches (ABS; Figs. 8A, 8D, 8E; corresponding text, in particular paragraphs [0043], [0091] - [0094], [0098], [0102], [0111]; Claims, notably 1, 19, and 26-33) an apparatus (Fig. 8A) comprising: a photonic chip for optical frequency conversion (ABS; “nonlinear optical waveguide”, which as formed in combination meets a “photonic chip” language, see Fig. 8A overall element 800), comprising: a substrate 806 having a surface; and a planar optical waveguide 802 (rib or ridge optical waveguide, at “h” height; see para [0094]) disposed along the surface (see Fig. 8A) and comprising an optical core of periodically-poled thin-film ferroelectric material (paras [0030], [0084], [0091], [0094]), the optical core having a thickness “h” (note the frame-of-reference for Applicant’s Figs. is the “height” or “thickness” direction of the waveguide) and a width (see Fig. 8A Mason for left-to-right for “width”), the thickness varying along the optical waveguide (thickness or height varies at 809A / 809B, wherein the width “w” (left-to-right in Mason Fig. 8A) of the optical core (also) varies along the optical waveguide in a manner correlated with the variations of the thickness of the optical core along the optical waveguide (with the ridge height “h” decreasing or increasing; the correlated ridge width “w” also increases or decreases; Mason claims 1 and 10).
Regarding further dependent claim 7 (and claims 8-12 which depend additionally from claim 7), Mason US ‘732 does not expressly and exactly teach the configuration in which the optical core comprises a sequence of core segments of different widths (note the embodiment as shown in Applicant’s Fig. 5).
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.
Since Mason US ‘732 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 Mason US ‘732.
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, into the base design of the nonlinear optical frequency converter of Mason, 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 a “sequency of core segments having different widths” (of the PPLN and/or LN). Additionally, the base independent claim 1 is fully anticipated by Mason and a number of other prior art reference (see 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) above). See KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727 (2007). For these reasons, dependent claim 7 is found obvious over Mason US ‘732 and further in view of Wang et al. NPL (henceforth “COMBO”).
Regarding further dependent claims 8-12, all such features are either found within the hypothetical combined features of COMBO, or would have been obvious design choices requiring common skill. KSR. The features of claim 8 (Fig. 2a of Wang); claim 9 (Fig. 2a of Wang); claim 10, groove depth of 80nm (part 2.2 of Wang); claim 11, obvious design choice to make at least 10 adjacent pairs (adding redundancy and utility) for the different widths; and claim 12, part 2.2 with dimensions, are all found within COMBO in a reasonably obvious formation, and would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date. Therefore, all further claims 8-12 (from claim 7) would have been obvious over COMBO, standing alone, and using the references themselves with mere common skill in the art. KSR.
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 references A-E and N, which pertain to the state of the art of optical nonlinear waveguides using PPLN (or another periodically poled material) for frequency conversion utility, and having different shapes of the width / thickness of the core. Note in particular reference E to Puckett US ‘852, which pertains directly to Applicant’s dependent claim 7.
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 February 25, 2026