DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The prior art documents submitted by applicant in the Information Disclosure Statement filed 08/20/2024 have all been considered and made of record.
Joint Inventors
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.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 11 of claim 1 should read “…coupled to the first ring resonator and the third ring resonator…”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 11 and 17 are objected to because they recite the limitation “…wherein a radiofrequency (RF) modulation can be applied to all three piezoelectric actuators to produce a spatio-temporal modulation of the ring resonators…” (Lines 1-3 of claims 11 and 17 respectively). All modulation of ring resonators is bounded by the fabric of spacetime (if the resonators are being modulated, their position and associated change of position in time is in some way coupled to some form of controlling element), so the use of the term “spatio-temporal” evokes unnecessary confusion in the current context.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4, 7-9, 12-13, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With regards to claims 4, 9, 12-13, and 16, the claims include limitations reciting that particular quantities must be “…around…” a particular value for the given claim (For example; Line 2 of claim 4). There is no indication in the claims or the specification of what numerical ranges should be considered in the context of the term “around” as it is used in the claims. The claims are indefinite because they do not particularly point out the bounds of the claimed structures.
Examiner’s note: For the purposes of further examination, examiner has interpreted “around X” as meaning that the relevant value must be within 33% of X.
With regards to claims 4, 13, and 16, the claims include limitations reciting that components are positioned at a “…regular spacing equal to…” a quantity of degrees (For example; Line 2 of claim 4). Degrees are a unit of rotation, not distance. Thus, a regular spacing cannot be equal to a quantity of degrees. The claims are indefinite because they include limitations directed to the relative positions of individual components of the device but do not clearly define said relative positions, and thus create confusion regarding the structure of the claimed device.
Examiner’s note: For the purposes of further examination, the limitations referenced above are being interpreted as generally limiting to the scope of the relevant claims to devices wherein a number of ring resonators are arranged radially about a central point.
With regards to claims 7, 8 and 20, the claims include limitations reciting that there “…is a fixed phase relationship between the modulation of…” components. The phrase “fixed phase relationship” is not further defined in the specification and could be interpreted to mean that there exists some unchanging relationship involving phase, that there exists some relationship defined by one phase remaining the same, that there exists a relationship between multiple phases that themselves are unchanging, or just there exists a phase relationship that is controlled. The claims are indefinite because they suggest some relationship between multiple components, but the nature of the relationship is unclear.
Examiner’s note: For the purposes of further examination, the limitations referenced above are being interpreted as generally limiting to the scope of the relevant claims to devices with multiple optically coupled ring resonators wherein the control can be exerted over a respective phase.
With regards to claims 9 and 12, the claims include the term “Ultra-low loss”, but the term is not defined in the claims or the specification. The claims are indefinite because it is unclear what degree of losses constitute ultra-low losses.
Examiner’s note: For the purposes of further examination, the term “ultra-low loss” has been interpreted generally as applying to components configured to reduce losses.
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 1-2, 4-7, and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Messica (US 6909824 B1).
With regards to claim 1, Messica discloses a photonic molecule configured as a programmable tunable dispersion engineering system, the photonic molecule comprising:
a first ring resonator optically coupled to a first waveguide, wherein the first ring resonator is tunable by a first piezoelectric actuator (Fig5b/First ring resonator RR, first waveguide WG, and first piezoelectric actuator PA as labeled below [Indicated by leftmost arrow in all 3 cases]);
a second ring resonator optically coupled to a second waveguide, wherein the second ring resonator is tunable by a second piezoelectric actuator (Fig5b/Second ring resonator RR, second waveguide WG, and second piezoelectric actuator PA as labeled below [Indicated by central arrow in all 3 cases]); and
a third ring resonator optically coupled to a third waveguide, wherein the third ring resonator is tunable by a third piezoelectric actuator (Fig5b/Third ring resonator RR, Third waveguide WG, and Third piezoelectric actuator PA as labeled below [Indicated by rightmost arrow in all 3 cases]);
wherein the third ring resonator is optically coupled to the first ring resonator and the second ring resonator (Fig5b//[All elements are at least optically coupled via element 551]),
wherein the second ring resonator is optically coupled to the first ring resonator and the first ring resonator (Fig5b//[All elements are at least optically coupled via element 551]), and
wherein the first ring resonator is optically coupled to the second ring resonator and the third ring resonator (Fig5b//[All elements are at least optically coupled via element 551]).
PNG
media_image1.png
170
124
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
170
124
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
170
124
media_image3.png
Greyscale
With regards to claim 2, Messica discloses the photonic molecule of claim 1. Messica does not explicitly recite that each of the first, second, and third ring resonators are independently controllable by separately applying a first voltage to the first piezoelectric actuator, a second voltage to the second piezoelectric actuator and a third voltage to the third piezoelectric actuator, but does disclose 3 separate piezoelectric actuators (Paragraph 9; Fig5b/[Separate actuators]) and it has been held that the recitation that an element is capable of performing a function (e.g., “…are independently controllable…”) is not a positive limitation, but only requires the ability to perform said function (In re Hutchison, 69 USPQ 138).
With regards to claim 4, Messica discloses the photonic molecule of claim 1, wherein the first, second, and third ring resonators are positioned at a regular spacing of around 120 degrees (Fig5b/Regular spacing of around 120 degrees as shown below).
PNG
media_image4.png
170
124
media_image4.png
Greyscale
With regards to claim 5, Messica discloses the photonic molecule of claim 1. Messica does not explicitly recite that the first piezoelectric actuator, second piezoelectric actuator, and third piezoelectric actuator all allow DC bias resonance tuning of the first ring resonator, second ring resonator, and third ring resonator respectively, but does disclose a plurality of individual piezoelectric actuators and associated ring resonators (Fig5b) and it has been held that the recitation that an element is capable of performing a function (e.g., “…allow DC bias resonance…”) is not a positive limitation, but only requires the ability to perform said function (In re Hutchison, 69 USPQ 138).
With regards to claim 6, Messica discloses the photonic molecule of claim 1. Messica does not explicitly state that the first piezoelectric actuator allows radio frequency modulation of the first ring resonator, the second piezoelectric actuator allows radiofrequency modulation of the second ring resonator, and the first piezoelectric actuator allows radiofrequency modulation of the third ring resonator but does disclose a plurality of individual piezoelectric actuators (Fig5b) and it has been held that the recitation that an element is capable of performing a function (e.g., “…allows radio frequency modulation…”) is not a positive limitation, but only requires the ability to perform said function (In re Hutchison, 69 USPQ 138).
With regards to claims 7 and 8, Messica discloses the photonic molecule of claim 6. Messica does not explicitly state that there is a fixed phase relationship between the modulation of the first ring resonator, the second ring resonator, and the third ring resonator, but does disclose that the resonators can be modulated (Figs1a&5b; Column 5/Lines 19-24; [See the 35 USC 112 section of this office action]). The limitations "…wherein there is a fixed phase relationship between the modulation of the first ring resonator, the second ring resonator, and the third ring resonator…" and "…wherein the fixed phase relationship is an around 120 degree phase shift between each pair of ring resonators…" are intended uses of the photonic molecule. It has been held that “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does” (Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc. 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990)); that a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim (Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)); and that if a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the preamble, then it meets the claim (In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997)). See MPEP § 2111.02, II and MPEP § 2114, II.
With regards to claim 10, Messica discloses the photonic molecule of claim 1, wherein each of the ring resonators are equally spaced from each other, and wherein the spacing between each waveguide and each ring resonator is a same amount (Fig5b).
With regards to claim 11, Messica discloses the photonic molecule of claim 1. Messica does not explicitly recite that a radiofrequency (RF) modulation can be applied to all three piezoelectric actuators to produce a spatio-temporal modulation of the ring resonators that is decoupled from physical dimensions of each ring resonator, but it has been held that the recitation that an element is capable of performing a function (e.g., “…can be applied…”) is not a positive limitation, but only requires the ability to perform said function (In re Hutchison, 69 USPQ 138).
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, 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.
Claims 12-14 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Messica (US 6909824 B1) in view of Baehr-Jones (US 20170149508 A1).
With regards to claim 12, Messica discloses a non-magnetic ultra-low loss waveguide integrated optical isolator and circulator, the optical isolator circulator comprising:
a set of ring resonators, wherein each ring resonator from the set of ring resonators is optically coupled to a waveguide and each ring resonator is optically coupled to at least two other ring resonators from the set of ring resonators, and wherein the set of ring resonators comprises at least a first ring resonator, a second ring resonator, and a third ring resonator (Fig5b/First to third ring resonators RR (right arrow to left arrow) and First to third waveguides (right arrow to left arrow) WG as shown below);
a set of piezoelectric actuators, wherein each ring resonator in the set of ring resonators corresponds to a piezoelectric actuator from the set of piezoelectric actuators on a one-to-on basis, and wherein the set of piezoelectric actuators is configured to tune each of the ring resonators from the set of ring resonators independently (Fig5b/Piezoelectric actuators PA as shown below).
PNG
media_image1.png
170
124
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
170
124
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
170
124
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Messica discloses a plurality of individual piezoelectric actuators, but is silent regarding a signal source configured to provide a modulating radio frequency input to each piezoelectric actuator in the set of piezoelectric actuators such that a first piezoelectric actuator receives a first modulating radio frequency input, the second piezoelectric actuator receives a second modulating radio frequency input, and the third piezoelectric actuator receives a third modulating radio frequency input. However, the practice of electrically connecting modulating radio frequency sources to actuators exists in the art as exemplified by Baehr-Jones.
Messica and Baehr-Jones are considered to be analogous in the field of optical resonator devices. Messica discloses a set of piezoelectric actuators. Baehr-Jones discloses a signal source configured to provide a modulating radio frequency input to a set of piezoelectric actuators such that individual piezoelectric actuators amongst the set receive respective modulating radio frequency inputs (Baehr-Jones; Paragraph 39/Lines 1-3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the electrical signal source of Messica such that it was configured to provide a modulating radio frequency input to each piezoelectric actuator in the set of piezoelectric actuators such that a first piezoelectric actuator receives a first modulating radio frequency input, the second piezoelectric actuator receives a second modulating radio frequency input, and the third piezoelectric actuator receives a third modulating radio frequency input since doing so would facilitate precise control over the activity of the actuators.
Messica and Baehr-Jones do not explicitly teach that a second modulating radio frequency input is offset from a first modulating radio frequency input by a first amount, a third modulating radio frequency input is offset from the first modulating radio frequency by a second amount, and the second amount is around double the first amount or that the first amount is equal to around 360 degrees divided by a total number of ring resonators in the set of ring resonators. However, the limitations “…wherein the second modulating radio frequency input is offset from the first modulating radio frequency input by a first amount, the third modulating radio frequency input is offset from the first modulating radio frequency by a second amount, and the second amount is around double the first amount; and wherein the first amount is equal to around 360 degrees divided by a total number of ring resonators in the set of ring resonators…” are an intended use of the optical isolator circulator. It has been held that “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does” (Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc. 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990)); that a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim (Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)); and that if a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the preamble, then it meets the claim (In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997)). See MPEP § 2111.02, II and MPEP § 2114, II.
With regards to claim 13, Messica and Baehr-Jones together disclose the optical isolator of claim 12, wherein the ring resonators are positioned at a regular spacing equal to around 360 degrees divided by the total number of ring resonators in the set of ring resonators (Fig5b/Regular spacing of around 360 degrees divided by the total number of ring resonators in the set of ring resonators as shown below).
PNG
media_image4.png
170
124
media_image4.png
Greyscale
With regards to claim 14, Messica and Baehr-Jones together disclose the optical isolator of claim 12. Messica does not explicitly recite that each of the ring resonators is configured to be DC bias resonance tuned but does disclose a plurality of individual ring resonators coupled to piezoelectric actuators (Fig5b) and it has been held that the recitation that an element is capable of performing a function (e.g., “…configured to be DC bias resonance tuned…”) is not a positive limitation, but only requires the ability to perform said function (In re Hutchison, 69 USPQ 138).
With regards to claim 16, Messica and Baehr-Jones together disclose the optical isolator of claim 12, wherein the first, second, and third ring resonators are positioned at a regular spacing of around 120 degrees (Fig5b/Regular spacing of around 120 degrees as shown below).
PNG
media_image4.png
170
124
media_image4.png
Greyscale
With regards to claim 18, Messica and Baehr-Jones together disclose the optical isolator of claim 12, wherein the first waveguide, the first ring resonator, the second ring resonator, the third ring resonator, and the second waveguide are mounted in a fully planar platform (Messica/Fig5b).
With regards to claim 19, Messica discloses a self-isolating laser, the self-isolating laser comprising:
a laser source (Column 1/Lines 52-58) connected to a first port on a first waveguide (Fig5b/Element 501), the first waveguide (Fig5b/First waveguide [Designated by central arrow of WG as shown below]) comprising the first port and a second port (Fig5b/First port and second port as indicated below [Dotted circles, right to left]);
a first ring resonator optically coupled to the first waveguide, wherein the first ring resonator is tunable by a first piezoelectric actuator (Fig5b/First ring resonator, first waveguide, and first piezoelectric actuator [Designated by leftmost arrow of RR, central arrow of WG, and leftmost arrow of PA as shown]);
a second ring resonator optically coupled to a second waveguide, wherein the second ring resonator is tunable by a second piezoelectric actuator (Fig5b/Second ring resonator, second waveguide, and second piezoelectric actuator [Designated by central arrow of RR, leftmost arrow of WG, and central arrow of PA as shown below]); and
a third ring resonator optically coupled to a third waveguide, wherein the third ring resonator is tunable by a third piezoelectric actuator (Fig5b/Third ring resonator, third waveguide, and third piezoelectric actuator [Designated by rightmost arrow of RR, rightmost arrow of WG, and rightmost arrow of PA as shown below]);
wherein the third ring resonator is optically coupled to the first ring resonator and the second ring resonator, wherein the second ring resonator is optically coupled to the first ring resonator and the first ring resonator, and wherein the first ring resonator is optically coupled to the second ring resonator and the third ring resonator (Fig5b//[All elements are at least optically coupled via element 551]).
PNG
media_image1.png
170
124
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
170
124
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
170
124
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
149
465
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Messica (US 6909824 B1) as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Strandjord (US 9459101 B1).
With regards to claim 3, Messica discloses the photonic molecule of claim 1 wherein at least one of the piezoelectric actuators is a stress-optic actuator (Messica/Paragraph 29), but is silent regarding said piezoelectric actuator being made of lead zirconate titanate. However, the practice of selecting lead zirconate titanate as a piezoelectric material exists in the art as exemplified by Strandjord.
Messica and Strandjord are considered to be analogous in the field of optical resonator devices. Messica discloses a piezoelectric stress-optic actuator. Strandjord discloses the use of lead zirconate titanate as a piezoelectric material (Strandjord/Column 3/Lines 28-33). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select lead zirconate titanate as the piezoelectric material of the stress-optic actuator disclosed by Messica as suggested by Strandjord since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Messica (US 6909824 B1) and Baehr-Jones (US 20170149508 A1) as applied to claim 14 above, in further view of Strandjord (US 9459101 B1).
With regards to claim 15, Messica and Baehr-Jones together disclose the optical isolator of claim 14, but is silent regarding the piezoelectric actuators being made of lead zirconate titanate. However, the practice of selecting lead zirconate titanate as a piezoelectric material exists in the art as exemplified by Strandjord.
Messica, Baehr-Jones, and Strandjord are considered to be analogous in the field of optical resonator devices. Messica discloses a set of piezoelectric actuators. Strandjord discloses the use of lead zirconate titanate as a piezoelectric material (Strandjord/Column 3/Lines 28-33). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select lead zirconate titanate as the piezoelectric material of the actuators disclosed by Messica and Baehr-Jones as suggested by Strandjord since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Messica (US 6909824 B1) as applied to claim 1, in view of Lu (US 20100085573 A1).
With regards to claim 9, Messica discloses the photonic molecule of claim 1, wherein the waveguides are ultra-low loss. Messica is silent regarding the resonators having a Q greater than around 8 million. However, the practice of forming optical resonators to have a Q greater than around 8 million exits in the art as exemplified by Lu.
Messica and Lu are considered to be analogous in the field of optical ring resonator devices. Messica discloses a plurality of optical ring resonators. Lu discloses an optical resonator with a Q greater than around 8 million (Lu/Fig2; Paragraph 18). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the ring resonators of Messica such that they had Q values greater around 8 million as suggested by Lu since doing so would reduce light losses in the resonators.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Messica (US 6909824 B1) and Baehr-Jones (US 20170149508 A1) as applied to claim 14 above, in further view of Paolella (US 20170363858 A1).
With regards to claim 17, Messica and Baehr-Jones together disclose the optical isolator of claim 14, wherein a spatio-temporal modulation of the ring resonators that is decoupled from physical dimensions of each ring resonator is produced (Messica/fig5b; Column 5/Lines 61-67), but is silent regarding whether or not the ring resonators are modulated by radiofrequency. However, the practice of modulating resonators via radiofrequency exists in the art as exemplified by Paolella.
Messica, Baehr-Jones, and Paolella are considered to be analogous in the field of optical resonator devices. Messica discloses three ring resonators that can be modulated. Paolella teaches three ring resonators (Paolella/Fig1/Ring resonators 35-36) that are modulated via radiofrequency inputs (Paolella/Fig1; Paragraph 21). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the ring resonators of Messica and Baehr-Jones to be modulated by a radiofrequency as suggested by Paolella since doing so would facilitate precise control over the activity of the resonators.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Messica (US 6909824 B1) as applied to claim 19 above, in view of Paolella (US 20170363858 A1).
With regards to claim 20, Messica discloses the self-isolating laser of claim 19, wherein there is a fixed phase relationship between the modulation of the first ring resonator, the second ring resonator, and the third ring resonator (Fig5b; Column 5/Lines 37-41; [See the 35 USC 112 section of this office action]). Messica is silent regarding whether or not the first ring resonator, second ring resonator, and third ring resonator are modulated by a radiofrequency. However, the practice of modulating resonators via radiofrequency exists in the art as exemplified by Paolella.
Messica and Paolella are considered to be analogous in the field of optical resonator devices. Messica discloses three ring resonators that can be modulated. Paolella teaches three ring resonators (Paolella/Fig1/Ring resonators 35-36) that are modulated via radiofrequency inputs (Paolella/Fig1; Paragraph 21). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the ring resonators of Messica to be modulated by a radiofrequency as suggested by Paolella since doing so would facilitate precise control over the activity of the resonators.
Conclusion
This prior art, made of record, but not relied upon, is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure since the following references have similar structure and/or use similar structure and/or similar optical elements to what is disclosed and/or claimed in the instant application:
Ensher (US 12278461 B1) [Fig4]
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Marc E Manheim whose telephone number is (703)756-1873. The examiner can normally be reached 6:30am - 5pm E.T., Monday - Tuesday and Thursday - Friday.
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, Thomas A 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.
/MARC E MANHEIM/Examiner, Art Unit 2874
/THOMAS A HOLLWEG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874