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 .
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) 1-8, 10-14, 19-23, and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0139266 to Montoya et al.
In regards to claims 1 and 19, Montoya recites an apparatus/method (Figures 1 & 2) comprising: a photonic chip [0037]; a first array of optical phase shifters (110) in the photonic chip; a first optical coupler (150) in the photonic chip configured to couple a first optical port to the first array of optical phase shifters; and an optical amplifier module (160) optically coupled to a first portion of the photonic chip to receive phase shifted optical waves provided from respective optical waveguides in the photonic chip, where the phase shifted optical waves are optically coupled to respective output ports of the first array of optical phase shifters.
But Montoya fails to expressly recite where the optical amplifier module is configured to: provide, after propagation of the phase shifted optical waves through different respective gain regions, amplified optical waves that optically interfere with each other starting at an emission plane to form an optical phased array output beam, and provide an arrangement of the gain regions such that (1) at least two phase shifted optical waves propagating through adjacent gain regions have optical path lengths between the first optical port and the emission plane that are substantially equal to each other, and (2) a pitch of the gain regions is substantially equal to a pitch of the amplified optical waves at the emission plane.
However, it is noted that an apparatus claim must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997); See MPEP 2114 [R-1]).
Additionally, the functional recitation of “configured to” has not been given patentable weight because it is narrative in form. In order to be given patentable weight, a functional recitation must be expressed as a “means” for performing the specified function, as set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 112, 6th paragraph, and must be supported be recitation in the claim of sufficient structure to warrant the presence of the functional language (In re Fuller, 1929 C.D. 172; 388 O.G. 279).
The Examiner notes that the limitation “configured to” does not define any structure. Therefore, since it has been held that the recitation that an element is “configured to” perform a function is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform, the prior art rejection above meets the structure limitations of the claim is therefore capable of being configured to perform these functions.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to a person having ordinary skill in the art for Montoya’s device so that the optical amplifier module is configured to: provide, after propagation of the phase shifted optical waves through different respective gain regions, amplified optical waves that optically interfere with each other starting at an emission plane to form an optical phased array output beam, and provide an arrangement of the gain regions such that (1) at least two phase shifted optical waves propagating through adjacent gain regions have optical path lengths between the first optical port and the emission plane that are substantially equal to each other, and (2) a pitch of the gain regions is substantially equal to a pitch of the amplified optical waves at the emission plane.
In regards to claim 2, Montoya recites a second array of optical phase shifters (bottom half of phase shifters 110) in the photonic chip; a second optical coupler (bottom half of optical couplers 150) in the photonic chip configured to couple a second optical port to the second array of optical phase shifters (bottom half of optical phase shifters 160); and a receive aperture configured to optically couple a received optical beam, received at the emission plane, to the second array of optical phase shifters.
In regards to claim 3, Montoya recites the receive aperture is adjacent to a transmit aperture from which the optical phased array output beam is transmitted. (Figure 1)
In regards to claims 4 and 7, although Montoya does not expressly recite the pitch of the gain regions is substantially equal to a pitch of the optical phase shifters/antenna, Montoya teaches the phase shifters to be adjustable [0028] as desired in order to modulate and steer the light as desired. Since adjusting the pitch of the gain region to be substantially equal to the pitch of the optical phase shifters is advantageous in order to output the desired light signal and further since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, it would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the pitch of the gain regions is substantially equal to a pitch of the optical phase shifters/antenna. In re Aller, 105 USPA 233; In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)
In regards to claim 5, Montoya recites the emission plane intersects with an edge of the optical amplifier module.
In regards to claim 6, Montoya recites the optical amplifier module is optically coupled to a second portion of the photonic chip to provide the amplified optical waves to optical antennas in the photonic chip, and the emission plane intersects with an edge or surface of the photonic chip adjacent to the optical antennas. [0037]
In regards to claim 8, Montoya recites the respective optical waveguides in the first portion of the photonic chip are a first set of optical waveguides, and the second portion of the photonic chip comprises a second set of optical waveguides configured to receive the amplified optical waves from the optical amplifier module.
In regards to claim 10, Montoya recites the respective optical waveguides all have optical path lengths that are substantially equal to each other. (Figures 1 & 2)
In regards to claims 11 and 12, although Montoya does not expressly recite wherein the optical amplifier module is configured to provide the arrangement of the gain regions such that all of the phase shifted optical waves propagating through different respective gain regions have optical path lengths between the first optical port and the emission plane that are substantially equal to each other and wherein the optical amplifier module is configured to substantially preserve isolation among the phase shifted optical waves as they propagate through the optical amplifier module, however, it is noted that an apparatus claim must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997); See MPEP 2114 [R-1]).
Additionally, the functional recitation of “configured to” has not been given patentable weight because it is narrative in form. In order to be given patentable weight, a functional recitation must be expressed as a “means” for performing the specified function, as set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 112, 6th paragraph, and must be supported be recitation in the claim of sufficient structure to warrant the presence of the functional language (In re Fuller, 1929 C.D. 172; 388 O.G. 279).
The Examiner notes that the limitation “configured to” does not define any structure. Therefore, since it has been held that the recitation that an element is “configured to” perform a function is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform, the prior art rejection above meets the structure limitations of the claim is therefore capable of being configured to perform these functions.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to a person having ordinary skill in the art for Montoya’s device so that the optical amplifier module is configured to provide the arrangement of the gain regions such that all of the phase shifted optical waves propagating through different respective gain regions have optical path lengths between the first optical port and the emission plane that are substantially equal to each other and wherein the optical amplifier module is configured to substantially preserve isolation among the phase shifted optical waves as they propagate through the optical amplifier module, however, it is noted that an apparatus claim must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function
In regards to claims 13 and 14, Montoya fails to expressly recite wherein the respective optical waveguides each define a guided optical mode in a portion of the photonic chip that has a transmittance of at least 80% over an operating wavelength range and wherein the optical amplifier module comprises: a substrate that has an optical transmittance of at least 80% over the operating wavelength range, and the respective gain regions in the substrate, where each gain region is positioned to overlap with at least a portion of a respective optical mode in the substrate coupled to a different one of the guided optical modes defined by the respective optical waveguides. However, it would be advantageous to have provided an optical transmittance of at least 80% over the operating wavelength in order to decrease the loss of signal and further since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have wherein the respective optical waveguides each define a guided optical mode in a portion of the photonic chip that has a transmittance of at least 80% over an operating wavelength range and wherein the optical amplifier module comprises: a substrate that has an optical transmittance of at least 80% over the operating wavelength range, and the respective gain regions in the substrate, where each gain region is positioned to overlap with at least a portion of a respective optical mode in the substrate coupled to a different one of the guided optical modes defined by the respective optical waveguides. In re Aller, 105 USPA 233; In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)
In regards to claims 20 and 25, Montoya recites an apparatus/method (Figures 1 & 2) comprising: a photonic chip [0037]; a first array of optical phase shifters (110) in the photonic chip; a first optical coupler (150) in the photonic chip configured to couple a first optical port to the first array of optical phase shifters; and an optical amplifier module (160) optically coupled to a first portion of the photonic chip with portions of phase shifted optical waves guided by respective optical waveguides in the photonic chip, where the phase shifted optical waves are optically coupled to respective output ports of the first array of optical phase shifters.
Although Montoya does not expressly recite an optical amplifier module optically coupled to a first portion of the photonic chip to overlap with portions of phase shifted optical waves guided by respective optical waveguides in the photonic chip, where the phase shifted optical waves are optically coupled to respective output ports of the first array of optical phase shifters, Montoya does teach different configurations and coupling techniques such as free space, with waveguides or a combination of known techniques. [0061] Since overlapping optical components would provide for improved coupling and efficiency, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have provided an optical amplifier module optically coupled to a first portion of the photonic chip to overlap with portions of phase shifted optical waves guided by respective optical waveguides in the photonic chip, where the phase shifted optical waves are optically coupled to respective output ports of the first array of optical phase shifters.
But Montoya fails to expressly recite where the optical amplifier module is configured to: provide a gain region that is within a substrate that is adjacent to the respective optical waveguides, and provide, after propagation of the overlapping portions of the phase shifted optical waves through different respective portions of the gain region, amplified optical waves that optically interfere with each other starting at an emission plane to form an optical phased array output beam.
However, it is noted that an apparatus claim must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997); See MPEP 2114 [R-1]).
Additionally, the functional recitation of “configured to” has not been given patentable weight because it is narrative in form. In order to be given patentable weight, a functional recitation must be expressed as a “means” for performing the specified function, as set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 112, 6th paragraph, and must be supported be recitation in the claim of sufficient structure to warrant the presence of the functional language (In re Fuller, 1929 C.D. 172; 388 O.G. 279).
The Examiner notes that the limitation “configured to” does not define any structure. Therefore, since it has been held that the recitation that an element is “configured to” perform a function is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform, the prior art rejection above meets the structure limitations of the claim is therefore capable of being configured to perform these functions.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to a person having ordinary skill in the art for Montoya’s device so that the optical amplifier module is configured to: provide a gain region that is within a substrate that is adjacent to the respective optical waveguides, and provide, after propagation of the overlapping portions of the phase shifted optical waves through different respective portions of the gain region, amplified optical waves that optically interfere with each other starting at an emission plane to form an optical phased array output beam.
In regards to claim 21, Montoya recites a second array of optical phase shifters (bottom half of phase shifters 110) in the photonic chip; a second optical coupler (bottom half of optical couplers 150) in the photonic chip configured to couple a second optical port to the second array of optical phase shifters (bottom half of optical phase shifters 160); and a receive aperture configured to optically couple a received optical beam, received at the emission plane, to the second array of optical phase shifters.
In regards to claim 22, Montoya recites the emission plane intersects with an edge of the optical amplifier module.
In regards to claim 23, Montoya recites the respective optical waveguides provide the amplified optical waves to optical antennas in the photonic chip, and the emission plane intersects with an edge or surface of the photonic chip adjacent to the optical antennas. [0037]
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9, 15-18, and 24 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
In regards to claims 9 and 24, the prior art of record fails to disclose or reasonably suggest the optical amplifier module comprises a substrate different from a material from which the first and second sets of optical waveguides are formed, and the optical amplifier module is positioned at least partially within a trench formed in the photonic chip, where at least one trench surface is adjacent to the first set of optical waveguides and at least one trench surface is adjacent to the second set of optical waveguides in addition to the accompanying features of the independent claim and any intervening claims.
In regards to claims 15-18, the prior art of record fails to disclose or reasonably suggest a first gain region and a second gain region of the plurality of gain regions are isolated from each other by a gap in the substrate in addition to the accompanying features of the independent claim and any intervening claims.
References Cited
The references cited made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. None of the documents cited by the Examiner discloses or reasonably suggests the allowable subject matter discussed above.
The documents submitted by applicant in the Information Disclosure Statement have been considered and made of record. Note attached copy of form PTO-1449. None of the references submitted by Applicant discloses or reasonably suggest the allowable subject matter discussed above.
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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TINA M WONG whose telephone number is (571)272-2352. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:30.
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.
/TINA WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874