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 .
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 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.
DETAILED ACTION
This is an AIA application filed February 1, 2024.
The earliest effective filing date of this AIA application is seen as March 29, 2023, the date of the earliest priority application (JAPAN 2023-053015) for any claims which are fully supported under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) by the parent application.
The effective filing date of this AIA application is seen as February 1, 2024, the actual filing date, for any claims that are not fully supported by the foregoing provisional or non-provisional application(s).
The present application is also related to the applications giving rise to the following patent publication(s):
Office
Application
App. Date
Pub. #
Pub. Date
JP
2023053015
03/29/2023
JP 2024141404 A
10/10/2024
CN
202410164538
02/05/2024
CN 118732173 A
10/01/2024
The claims filed May 27, 2026 are entered, currently outstanding, and subject to examination.
This action is in response to the filing of the same date.
The current status and history of the claims is summarized below:
Last Amendment/Response
Previously
Amended:
1
N/A
Cancelled:
none
N/A
Withdrawn:
none
N/A
Added:
none
N/A
Claims 1-25 are currently pending and outstanding.
Regarding the last reply:
Claim 1 was amended.
No claims were cancelled.
No claims were withdrawn.
No claims were added.
Claims 1-25 are currently outstanding and subject to examination.
This is final action and is the second action on the merits.
Allowable subject matter is not indicated below.
Often, in the substance of the action below, formal matters are addressed first, claim rejections second, and any response to arguments third.
Specification
Applicant must provide the same terminology/vocabulary/phrasing in the specification that is present in the claims. At least one term or phrase is missing from the specification present in the claim(s).
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o).
Correction is required as the following amendment(s)/text in the claims find(s) no antecedent in the specification.
Claim(s)
Antecedent Missing For
1
connects one or more light-input-side optical waveguides to only a single light-output-side optical waveguide
As set forth in MPEP § 608.01(o):
The meaning of every term used in any of the claims should be apparent from the descriptive portion of the specification with clear disclosure as to its import; and in mechanical cases, it should be identified in the descriptive portion of the specification by reference to the drawing, designating the part or parts therein to which the term applies. A term used in the claims may be given a special meaning in the description. See MPEP § 2111.01 and § 2173.05(a).
Usually the terminology of the original claims follows the nomenclature of the specification, but sometimes in amending the claims or in adding new claims, new terms are introduced that do not appear in the specification. The use of a confusing variety of terms for the same thing should not be permitted.
. . . While an applicant is not limited to the nomenclature used in the application as filed, he or she should make appropriate amendment of the specification whenever this nomenclature is departed from by amendment of the claims so as to have clear support or antecedent basis in the specification for the new terms appearing in the claims. This is necessary in order to insure [sic, ensure] certainty in construing the claims in the light of the specification, Ex parte Kotler, 1901 C.D. 62, 95 O.G. 2684 (Comm’r Pat. 1901). See 37 CFR 1.75 and MPEP §§ 608.01(i), § 1302.01.
Consequently, identity between terms and phrases in the specification and claims is preferred and is seen as mandatory to ensure “certainty in construing the claims in the light of the specification”.
Further, under 37 C.F.R. § 1.121(e) regarding disclosure consistency:
The disclosure must be amended, when required by the Office, to correct inaccuracies of description and definition, and to secure substantial correspondence between the claims, the remainder of the specification, and the drawings.
Examiner considers direct correspondence between the specification and the claims to be important with respect to determining the scope of the claims.
Examiner strongly urges Applicant to review its claims with a fine-toothed comb and scrutinize them for any discrepancies between claim language and language that is used in the written description/specification as originally filed. Applicant is responsible for what it drafts. Discrepancies may be interpreted to Applicant’s detriment.
Special Definitions for Claim Language - MPEP § 2111.01(IV)
No special definitions are seen as present in the specification regarding the language used in the claims. Consequently, the words and phrases of the claims are given their plain meaning. MPEP §§ 2173.01, 2173.05(a), and 2111.01.
If special definitions are present, Applicant should bring those to the attention of the examiner and the prosecution history with its next response in a manner both specific and particular. In doing so, there will be no mistake, confusion, and/or ambiguity as to what constitutes the special definition(s).
To date, Applicant has provided no indication of special definitions.
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 of this title, 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.
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 1-13 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Chung, "Red-green-blue Beam Combiner Based on Two-mode Interference", Current Optics and Photonics, Vol. 3, No. 1, February 2019, pp. 22-26 (Chung) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0158443 of Jeong (Jeong).
Chung provides for multiplexing of optical signals using directional couplers (articulated below).
With respect to claim 1, Chung discloses an optical coupler for coupling a plurality of visible light beams having different wavelengths (p. 23, col. 1, ¶ 1, middle: "Properly designed two-mode waveguides connected to converging and diverging directional couplers can combine (multiplex) RGB colors."), the optical coupler comprising:
a plurality of light input ports to which the plurality of visible light beams can be input (Fig. 2, G, R, and B);
a light output port capable of coupling all of the plurality of visible light beams and outputting coupled light (O);
a one-or more-stage optical coupling portion (Fig. 2, the coupling elements shown at lower left and upper right) that connects one or more light-input-side optical waveguides to only a single light-output-side optical waveguide (p. 25, col. 1, incomplete ¶ 1 at end, "Green, red, and blue beams launched into the three input ports are shown to propagate toward the output port O.” O is a single output.).
Chung as set forth above does not disclose:
at least one high-order mode removal portion for visible light provided to remove a high mode with respect to each of the plurality of visible light beams,
wherein the optical coupling portion and each high-order mode removal portion for visible light are arranged so that each of the plurality of visible light beams passes through only a high-order mode removal portion for visible light or passes through only the high-order mode removal portion for the visible light and a high-order mode removal portion for visible light having a shorter wavelength than the visible light.
Jeong discloses an optical semiconductor device, manufacturing method thereof and optical transmission device that includes:
¶ 9, "Furthermore, a third method is proposed in which a filter for removing a higher-order mode is provided in one waveguide side of an optical branching and coupling element."
Jeong is not seen to be limited by wavelength, and so would apply to visible light.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to remove higher order modes along the lines of Jeong in a system according to Chung as set forth above in order to reduce pulse width spread (per Hamada, below, ¶ 7) for each input. This provides one rationale to combine the references.
Another completely independent and separately sufficient rationale arises as follows. In making the combination (above), the combining of prior art elements (listed above) according to known methods (per the references) to yield predictable results (an optical multiplexer) would occur as each element merely performs the same function in combination as it does separately. MPEP § 2141(III). This additional rationale is a sufficient, a complete, and an explicitly-recognized rationale to combine the references and conclude that the claim is obvious both under the controlling KSR Supreme Court case and MPEP § 2141(III)(A). Current Office policy regarding the determination of obviousness is set forth in the Federal Register notice at 89 Fed. Reg. 14449 (Feb. 27, 2024).
Further, the combination would then provide:
at least one high-order mode removal portion for visible light provided to remove a high mode with respect to each of the plurality of visible light beams,
wherein the optical coupling portion and each high-order mode removal portion for visible light are arranged so that each of the plurality of visible light beams passes through only a high-order mode removal portion for visible light or passes through only the high-order mode removal portion for the visible light and a high-order mode removal portion for visible light having a shorter wavelength than the visible light.
Examiner notes that shorter wavelengths translate to higher energy, requiring that only shorter wavelength high-order mode removal to prevent interference with the longer wavelength original signal.
With respect to claim 2, Chung in view of Jeong as set forth above discloses the optical coupler according to claim 1, including one wherein
the plurality of visible light beams having the different wavelengths are
blue light whose peak wavelength is 380 nm to 500 nm (Chung, abstract, "blue (446 nm)"),
green light whose peak wavelength is 500 nm to 600 nm ("green (532 nm)"), and
red light whose peak wavelength is 600 nm to 830 nm,
wherein the blue light passes through only a high-order mode removal portion for the blue light,
wherein the green light passes through only a high-order mode removal portion for the green light or passes through the high-order mode removal portion for the green light and the high-order mode removal portion for the blue light, and
wherein the red light passes through only a high-order mode removal portion for the red light, passes through only the high-order mode removal portion for the red light and the high-order mode removal portion for the green light, or passes through the high-order mode removal portion for the red light, the high-order mode removal portion for the green light, and the high-order mode removal portion for the blue light.
Per claim 1, above, the high-order mode removals are for higher, and not lower, frequencies.
With respect to claim 3, Chung in view of Jeong as set forth above discloses the optical coupler according to claim 2, including one wherein
the optical coupling portion includes a first multimode-interference-type optical coupling portion having two inputs and one output and a second multimode-interference-type optical coupling portion having two inputs and one output.
Per Chung Fig. 2.
Chung in view of Jeong as set forth above does not disclose:
wherein an optical waveguide for the red light and an optical waveguide for the green light are connected to a light input side of the first multimode-interference-type optical coupling portion,
an optical waveguide connected to a light output side of the first multimode-interference-type optical coupling portion and an optical waveguide for the blue light are connected to a light input side of the second multimode-interference-type optical coupling portion, and
an optical waveguide connected to a light output side of the second multimode-interference-type optical coupling portion is connected to the light output port.
However, as indicated above re Sakamoto I, wavelengths are generally interchangeable and any combination of wavelengths is seen as addressed by Chung.
With respect to claim 4, Chung in view of Jeong as set forth above discloses the optical coupler according to claim 3, including one wherein
the high-order mode removal portion for the blue light is arranged in an optical waveguide for connecting the light output side of the second multimode-interference-type optical coupling portion and the light output port.
The "filter for removing a higher-order mode is provided in one waveguide side of an optical branching and coupling element." per Jeong is seen as operable on any waveguide and at any location with respect to other circuit elements, optical or otherwise.
With respect to claim 5, Chung in view of Jeong as set forth above discloses the optical coupler according to claim 3, including one wherein
the high-order mode removal portion for the blue light is arranged in an optical waveguide for connecting the light input side of the second multimode-interference-type optical coupling portion and the light input port for the blue light.
The "filter for removing a higher-order mode is provided in one waveguide side of an optical branching and coupling element." per Jeong is seen as operable on any waveguide and at any location with respect to other circuit elements, optical or otherwise.
With respect to claim 6, Chung in view of Jeong as set forth above discloses the optical coupler according to claim 2, including one wherein
the optical coupling portion includes a first multimode-interference-type optical coupling portion having two inputs and one output and a second multimode-interference-type optical coupling portion having two inputs and one output, and
wherein an optical waveguide for the red light and an optical waveguide for the blue light are connected to a light input side of the first multimode-interference-type optical coupling portion,
an optical waveguide connected to a light output side of the first multimode-interference-type optical coupling portion and an optical waveguide for the green light are connected to a light input side of the second multimode-interference-type optical coupling portion, and
an optical waveguide connected to a light output side of the second multimode-interference-type optical coupling portion is connected to the light output port.
As indicated above re Sakamoto I, wavelengths are generally interchangeable and any combination of wavelengths is seen as addressed by Chung.
With respect to claim 7, Chung in view of Jeong as set forth above discloses the optical coupler according to claim 6, including one wherein
the high-order mode removal portion for the blue light is arranged in an optical waveguide for connecting the light output side of the second multimode-interference-type optical coupling portion and the light output port.
The "filter for removing a higher-order mode is provided in one waveguide side of an optical branching and coupling element." per Jeong is seen as operable on any waveguide and at any location with respect to other circuit elements, optical or otherwise.
With respect to claim 8, Chung in view of Jeong as set forth above discloses the optical coupler according to claim 6, including one wherein
the high-order mode removal portion for the blue light is arranged in an optical waveguide for connecting the light output side of the first multimode-interference-type optical coupling portion and the light input side of the second multimode-interference-type optical coupling portion.
The "filter for removing a higher-order mode is provided in one waveguide side of an optical branching and coupling element." per Jeong is seen as operable on any waveguide and at any location with respect to other circuit elements, optical or otherwise.
With respect to claim 9, Chung in view of Jeong as set forth above discloses the optical coupler according to claim 6, including one wherein
the high-order mode removal portion for the blue light is arranged in an optical waveguide for connecting the light input side of the first multimode-interference-type optical coupling portion and the light input port for the blue light.
The "filter for removing a higher-order mode is provided in one waveguide side of an optical branching and coupling element." per Jeong is seen as operable on any waveguide and at any location with respect to other circuit elements, optical or otherwise.
With respect to claim 10, Chung in view of Jeong as set forth above discloses the optical coupler according to claim 2, including one wherein
the optical coupling portion includes a first multimode-interference-type optical coupling portion having two inputs and one output and a second multimode-interference-type optical coupling portion having two inputs and one output, and
wherein an optical waveguide for the green light and an optical waveguide for the blue light are connected to a light input side of the first multimode-interference-type optical coupling portion,
an optical waveguide connected to a light output side of the first multimode-interference-type optical coupling portion and an optical waveguide for the red light are connected to a light input side of the second multimode-interference-type optical coupling portion, and
an optical waveguide connected to a light output side of the second multimode-interference-type optical coupling portion is connected to the light output port.
As indicated above re Sakamoto I, wavelengths are generally interchangeable and any combination of wavelengths is seen as addressed by Chung.
With respect to claim 11, Chung in view of Jeong as set forth above discloses the optical coupler according to claim 10, including one wherein
the high-order mode removal portion for the blue light is arranged in an optical waveguide for connecting the light output side of the second multimode-interference-type optical coupling portion and the light output port.
The "filter for removing a higher-order mode is provided in one waveguide side of an optical branching and coupling element." per Jeong is seen as operable on any waveguide and at any location with respect to other circuit elements, optical or otherwise.
With respect to claim 12, Chung in view of Jeong as set forth above discloses the optical coupler according to claim 10, including one wherein
the high-order mode removal portion for the blue light is arranged in an optical waveguide for connecting the light output side of the first multimode-interference-type optical coupling portion and the light input side of the second multimode-interference-type optical coupling portion.
The "filter for removing a higher-order mode is provided in one waveguide side of an optical branching and coupling element." per Jeong is seen as operable on any waveguide and at any location with respect to other circuit elements, optical or otherwise.
With respect to claim 13, Chung in view of Jeong as set forth above discloses the optical coupler according to claim 10, including one wherein
the high-order mode removal portion for the blue light is arranged in an optical waveguide for connecting the light input side of the first multimode-interference-type optical coupling portion and the light input port for the blue light.
The "filter for removing a higher-order mode is provided in one waveguide side of an optical branching and coupling element." per Jeong is seen as operable on any waveguide and at any location with respect to other circuit elements, optical or otherwise.
With respect to claim 16, Chung in view of Jeong as set forth above discloses the optical coupler according to claim 1, including one wherein
the high-order mode removal portion includes a bending waveguide.
Jeong, abstract, "An optical semiconductor device, including a first optical waveguide with a first width, a second optical waveguide with a second width narrower than the first width with a bending region, and a third optical waveguide with a third width wider than the second width and coupled to the second optical waveguide."
With respect to claim 17, Chung in view of Jeong as set forth above discloses the optical coupler according to claim 16, including one wherein
a line width of the bending waveguide is 2.0 μm or less.
Jeong, ¶ 53, 1.6µm
With respect to claim 18, Chung in view of Jeong as set forth above discloses the optical coupler according to claim 16, including one wherein
a line width of the bending waveguide is 0.2 μm or more.
Jeong, ¶ 53, 1.6µm
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Chung in view of Jeong as set forth above and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20090162007 of Hamada (Hamada).
With respect to claim 14, Chung in view of Jeong as set forth above discloses the optical coupler according to claim 2, but not one wherein
the optical coupling portion includes a multimode-interference-type optical coupling portion having three inputs and one output, and
wherein an optical waveguide for the red light,
an optical waveguide for the green light, and
an optical waveguide for the blue light are connected to a light input side of the multimode-interference-type optical coupling portion having three inputs and one output and an optical waveguide connected to a light output side of the multimode-interference-type optical coupling portion having three inputs and one output is connected to the light output port.
Hamada discloses an optical device, optical coupler and integrated circuit that includes (Fig. 1A, ¶ 139 et seq.):
the optical coupling portion (rectangular multimode waveguide 1) includes a multimode-interference-type optical coupling portion having three inputs (left side) and one output (¶ 140, "An output side single-mode waveguide 3 is connected to a width-wise central position of an output facet 38 of the rectangular multimode waveguide 1.")
¶ 4, "A self imaging phenomenon of multimode interference (MMI) in a rectangular multimode waveguide involves a reduced loss, is suitable for miniaturization, and allows easy processing."
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a multi-input connection structure along the lines of Hamada in a system according to Chung in view of Jeong as set forth above in order to provide more compact circuit structure and footprint. This provides one rationale to combine the references.
Another completely independent and separately sufficient rationale arises as follows. In making the combination (above), the combining of prior art elements (listed above) according to known methods (per the references) to yield predictable results (an optical multiplexer) would occur as each element merely performs the same function in combination as it does separately. MPEP § 2141(III). This additional rationale is a sufficient, a complete, and an explicitly-recognized rationale to combine the references and conclude that the claim is obvious both under the controlling KSR Supreme Court case and MPEP § 2141(III)(A). Current Office policy regarding the determination of obviousness is set forth in the Federal Register notice at 89 Fed. Reg. 14449 (Feb. 27, 2024).
Further, the combination would then provide:
wherein an optical waveguide for the red light, an optical waveguide for the green light, and an optical waveguide for the blue light are connected to a light input side of the multimode-interference-type optical coupling portion having three inputs and one output and an optical waveguide connected to a light output side of the multimode-interference-type optical coupling portion having three inputs and one output is connected to the light output port.
With respect to claim 15, Chung in view of Jeong and Hamada as set forth above discloses the optical coupler according to claim 14, including one wherein
the high-order mode removal portion for the blue light is arranged in an optical waveguide for connecting a light output side of the multimode-interference-type optical coupling portion having three inputs and one output and the light output port.
The "filter for removing a higher-order mode is provided in one waveguide side of an optical branching and coupling element." per Jeong is seen as operable on any waveguide and at any location with respect to other circuit elements, optical or otherwise.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Chung in view of Jeong as set forth above and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20190056552 of Sakamoto et al. (Sakamoto I, cited by Applicant).
Sakamoto I provides (¶ 75) that such multiplexing can occur using MMI (¶ 75, "Here, in the above embodiments, the description has been given of the cases of using directional couplers as the coupling parts. It is, however, needless to say that, for example, a 2×1 MMI or different multiplexer may be used instead.") Further, Sakamoto I provides for the disclosure that the combination of colors is interchangeable with respect to multiplexing and the like. Per ¶ 75, "It is, however, obvious that the present invention is applicable as an optical multiplexing/demultiplexing circuit that multiplexes or demultiplexes a plurality of light beams with different wavelengths.” The preferred and discussed embodiment in Sakamoto I is not seen as limiting.
With respect to claim 19, Chung in view of Jeong as set forth above discloses the optical coupler according to claim 1, but not one wherein
the optical coupler includes a one-or more-stage multimode-interference-type optical coupling portion.
Sakamoto I discloses an optical multiplexing circuit that includes:
¶ 75, "Here, in the above embodiments, the description has been given of the cases of using directional couplers as the coupling parts. It is, however, needless to say that, for example, a 2×1 MMI or different multiplexer may be used instead."
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use MMI/multimode-interference-type optical coupling portions along the lines of Sakamoto I in a system according to Chung in view of Jeong as set forth above in order to use optical equivalents for optical coupling. This provides one rationale to combine the references.
Another completely independent and separately sufficient rationale arises as follows. In making the combination (above), the combining of prior art elements (listed above) according to known methods (per the references) to yield predictable results (an optical multiplexer) would occur as each element merely performs the same function in combination as it does separately. MPEP § 2141(III). This additional rationale is a sufficient, a complete, and an explicitly-recognized rationale to combine the references and conclude that the claim is obvious both under the controlling KSR Supreme Court case and MPEP § 2141(III)(A). Current Office policy regarding the determination of obviousness is set forth in the Federal Register notice at 89 Fed. Reg. 14449 (Feb. 27, 2024).
Further, the combination would then provide:
the optical coupler includes a one-or more-stage multimode-interference-type optical coupling portion.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Chung in view of Jeong as set forth above and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0363693 of Zou et al. (Zou).
With respect to claim 20, Chung in view of Jeong as set forth above discloses an optical coupling member including one comprising:
wherein the optical coupler according to claim 1 is formed in the optical coupling function layer.
Chung in view of Jeong as set forth above does not disclose:
a substrate made of a material different from lithium niobate; and
an optical coupling function layer including a lithium niobate film formed on a main surface of the substrate.
Zou discloses a silicon-based lithium niobate film electro-optic modulator array and integration method thereof that includes (Fig. 2A, ¶¶ 45 and 47):
a substrate made of a material different from lithium niobate; and
an optical coupling function layer including a lithium niobate film formed on a main surface of the substrate.
¶ 45, "the silicon crystal substrate layer 2 provides a substrate material for integrating the silicon-based lithium niobate film electro-optic modulator 1".
¶ 47, "The optical splitter 41 in the embodiment is a multimode interferer structure."
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a lithium niobate structure along the lines of Zou in a system according to Chung in view of Jeong as set forth above in order to provide electro-optic control of optical signals. This provides one rationale to combine the references.
Another completely independent and separately sufficient rationale arises as follows. In making the combination (above), the combining of prior art elements (listed above) according to known methods (per the references) to yield predictable results (an optical multiplexer) would occur as each element merely performs the same function in combination as it does separately. MPEP § 2141(III). This additional rationale is a sufficient, a complete, and an explicitly-recognized rationale to combine the references and conclude that the claim is obvious both under the controlling KSR Supreme Court case and MPEP § 2141(III)(A). Current Office policy regarding the determination of obviousness is set forth in the Federal Register notice at 89 Fed. Reg. 14449 (Feb. 27, 2024).
Further, the combination would then provide:
a substrate made of a material different from lithium niobate; and
an optical coupling function layer including a lithium niobate film formed on a main surface of the substrate.
Claims 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Chung in view of Jeong and Zou as set forth above and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0221649 of Sakamoto et al. (Sakamoto II).
With respect to claim 21, Chung in view of Jeong and Zou as set forth above discloses a visible light source module including one comprising:
the optical coupling member according to claim 20.
Chung in view of Jeong and Zou as set forth above does not disclose:
a plurality of visible laser light sources configured to output visible light coupled by the optical coupling member.
Sakamoto II discloses an optical multiplexing circuit and light source that includes (Fig. 3):
[Claim] 4. The light source with a monitoring function according to claim 2, wherein the n×m laser diodes are three sets (m=3) of laser diodes that output light of three primary colors of red light (R), green light (G), and blue light (B).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use visible light laser diodes along the lines of Sakamoto II in a system according to Chung in view of Jeong and Zou as set forth above in order to provide concentrated and reliable light signals. This provides one rationale to combine the references.
Another completely independent and separately sufficient rationale arises as follows. In making the combination (above), the combining of prior art elements (listed above) according to known methods (per the references) to yield predictable results (an optical multiplexer) would occur as each element merely performs the same function in combination as it does separately. MPEP § 2141(III). This additional rationale is a sufficient, a complete, and an explicitly-recognized rationale to combine the references and conclude that the claim is obvious both under the controlling KSR Supreme Court case and MPEP § 2141(III)(A). Current Office policy regarding the determination of obviousness is set forth in the Federal Register notice at 89 Fed. Reg. 14449 (Feb. 27, 2024).
Further, the combination would then provide:
a plurality of visible laser light sources configured to output visible light coupled by the optical coupling member.
With respect to claim 22, Chung in view of Jeong, Zou, and Sakamoto II as set forth above discloses an optical coupling member having an optical modulation function, including one comprising:
the optical coupling member according to claim 20 (per above); and
a mach-zehnder-type optical modulator connected to the optical coupling member and configured to guide a plurality of visible light beams output from a plurality of visible laser light sources to the optical coupling member (Sakamoto II, Fig. 2, ¶ 6 et seq.).
With respect to claim 23, Chung in view of Jeong, Zou, and Sakamoto II as set forth above discloses a visible light source module including one comprising:
the optical coupling member having the optical modulation function according to claim 22 (per above); and
a plurality of visible laser light sources configured to output visible light coupled by the optical coupling member having the optical modulation function (Sakamoto II, Fig. 2, ¶ 6 et seq.).
With respect to claim 24, Chung in view of Jeong, Zou, and Sakamoto II as set forth above discloses an optical engine comprising:
the visible light source module according to claim 21 (per above),
but not one comprising:
an optical scanning mirror configured to reflect light output from the visible light source module by changing an angle so that an image is displayed.
Sakamoto II provides:
an optical scanning mirror configured to reflect light output from the visible light source module by changing an angle so that an image is displayed.
¶ 3, "FIG. 1 illustrates a typical light source of a projector using LDs. The light source for the projector includes LDs 1 to 3 that output light of a single wavelength of respective colors of R, G, and B, lenses 4 to 6 that collimate the light output from the LDs 1 to 3, and dichroic mirrors 10 to 12 that multiplex the respective light and output the light to a MEMS mirror 16. RGB light combined into a single beam is swept by using the MEMS mirror 16 or the like and is synchronized with modulation of the LDs, and thus an image is projected onto a screen 17."
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a scanning mirror to provide an image along the lines of Sakamoto II in a system according to Chung in view of Jeong, Zou, and Sakamoto II as set forth above in order to provide an image. This provides one rationale to combine the references.
Another completely independent and separately sufficient rationale arises as follows. In making the combination (above), the combining of prior art elements (listed above) according to known methods (per the references) to yield predictable results (an optical multiplexer) would occur as each element merely performs the same function in combination as it does separately. MPEP § 2141(III). This additional rationale is a sufficient, a complete, and an explicitly-recognized rationale to combine the references and conclude that the claim is obvious both under the controlling KSR Supreme Court case and MPEP § 2141(III)(A). Current Office policy regarding the determination of obviousness is set forth in the Federal Register notice at 89 Fed. Reg. 14449 (Feb. 27, 2024).
Further, the combination would then provide:
an optical scanning mirror configured to reflect light output from the visible light source module by changing an angle so that an image is displayed.
With respect to claim 25, Chung in view of Jeong, Zou, and Sakamoto II as set forth above discloses an optical engine including one comprising:
the visible light source module according to claim 23 (per above),
but not one comprising:
an optical scanning mirror configured to reflect light output from the visible light source module by changing an angle so that an image is displayed.
Sakamoto II provides:
an optical scanning mirror configured to reflect light output from the visible light source module by changing an angle so that an image is displayed.
¶ 3, "FIG. 1 illustrates a typical light source of a projector using LDs. The light source for the projector includes LDs 1 to 3 that output light of a single wavelength of respective colors of R, G, and B, lenses 4 to 6 that collimate the light output from the LDs 1 to 3, and dichroic mirrors 10 to 12 that multiplex the respective light and output the light to a MEMS mirror 16. RGB light combined into a single beam is swept by using the MEMS mirror 16 or the like and is synchronized with modulation of the LDs, and thus an image is projected onto a screen 17."
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a scanning mirror to provide an image along the lines of Sakamoto II in a system according to Chung in view of Jeong, Zou, and Sakamoto II as set forth above in order to provide an image. This provides one rationale to combine the references.
Another completely independent and separately sufficient rationale arises as follows. In making the combination (above), the combining of prior art elements (listed above) according to known methods (per the references) to yield predictable results (an optical multiplexer) would occur as each element merely performs the same function in combination as it does separately. MPEP § 2141(III). This additional rationale is a sufficient, a complete, and an explicitly-recognized rationale to combine the references and conclude that the claim is obvious both under the controlling KSR Supreme Court case and MPEP § 2141(III)(A). Current Office policy regarding the determination of obviousness is set forth in the Federal Register notice at 89 Fed. Reg. 14449 (Feb. 27, 2024).
Further, the combination would then provide:
an optical scanning mirror configured to reflect light output from the visible light source module by changing an angle so that an image is displayed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 27, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive and the claim rejections are not rebutted.
Applicant’s arguments are all based on elements missing from the references in order to make the rejections. As indicated above, all the limitations in the claims are present in the art and in the rejections.
Applicant argues that:
Independent claim 1 has been amended to recite additional features, as outlined above. Amended claim 1 recites, among other things, "a one- or more-stage optical coupling portion that connects one or more light-input-side optical waveguides to only a single light-output-side optical waveguide.” The applied references, individually or in combination, do not disclose and would not have rendered obvious the subject matter recited in claim 1, as amended.
In particular, Chung's "coupling elements shown at lower left and upper right" in Fig. 2, asserted in the Office Action to correspond to the recited "a one- or more-stage optical coupling portion," do not have the "only a single" feature added to claim 1 as shown above. As shown in Fig. 2 of Chung, each of such coupling elements has two output ports that branch out from the respective coupling elements.
Examiner response: Chung provides a single output for its inputs as recited therein and as cited above regarding claim 1.
Further, it appears that Applicant is relying upon the depicted schematics shown in its drawings. The pertinent elements there are multimode-interference (MMI) optical couplers such as those shown at 50, 50A, and 50B in Applicant’s Fig. 1.
Examiner is skeptical that the schematic elements completely show the MMI’s present there and that there is no “only a single” output in reality to Applicant’s specification as originally filed.
Applicant needs to show that its multimode-interference couplers have no additional outputs in apparent defiance of the known couplers in the art and in the cited references.
Applicant's arguments with regards to the remaining claims all rely upon the arguments set forth above. Consequently, these remaining arguments as seen as being addressed by the examiner's corresponding remarks.
Applicant’s remaining arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. As such, the examiner makes no remarks regarding them.
Conclusion
Applicant’s publication US 20240329323 A1 published October 3, 2024 was previously cited.
No new art is cited.
Applicant should note that Hamada provides a single output in its figures.
Applicant's amendment 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW JORDAN whose telephone number is (571) 270-1571. The examiner can normally be reached most days 1000-1800 PACIFIC TIME ZONE (messages are returned).
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. While examiner does not examine over the phone (see 37 C.F.R. § 1.2), examiner is glad to clarify or discuss issues so long as it forwards prosecution.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Thomas (Tom) HOLLWEG can be reached at (571) 270-1739. 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.
/Andrew Jordan/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874
V: (571) 270-1571 (Pacific time)
F: (571) 270-2571
August 3, 2026
Prosecution Insights