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 .
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Priority
As required by M.P.E.P. 201.14(c), acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for priority based on the application filed on November 3rd, 2022 (CN 202211367593.6). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the very first word of the claim “The” should read “An”.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “with N output port” should read “with N output ports”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the limitations “phase shifters and emission units”, “the light splitting network of the device can freely set the optical power weight of each array element”, “the light splitting network comprising certain types of basic light splitters”, “a tree topology structure, which can be freely designed”, “the light splitters used by each node in the network can also be freely selected” are unclear and render the claim indefinite. Specifically, it is unclear how many phase shifters and emission units are required by the claim because there is no mention of “a plurality” or “at least one” or similar language. Further, it is unclear whether the light splitting network sets the optical power weight of each array element because the limitation “can freely set” is optional language. Further, “certain types of basic light splitters” is unclear insofar as it is unclear what “certain types” means here and what makes a light splitter “basic”. Further, “can be freely designed” is optional language. Moreover, “each node in the network” lacks antecedent basis”. Finally, “can also be freely selected” is optional language. As these claim limitations essentially comprise the entire claim, for the purpose of examining the claims currently pending this claim will be interpreted to mean: “An optical phased array device wherein the light splitting weight of each array element can be freely set, comprising: a light splitting network having a plurality of nodes, at least one phase shifter and at least one emission unit; the light splitting network having optical power weights of each array element; the light splitting network comprising a plurality of light splitters, and the network adopts a tree topology structure, and there are light splitters used by each node in the network.
Regarding claim 2, the limitation “the optical power between N ports can be evenly or unevenly distributed” is unclear and renders the claim indefinite. Specifically, “can be” is optional language which renders the claim indefinite. Accordingly, for the purpose of examining the claims currently pending, this limitation will be interpreted to mean “the optical power between N ports is distributed”.
Regarding claim 3, the limitation “comprises only a few kinds of basic light splitters” is unclear and renders the claim indefinite. Specifically, “only a few kinds of basic light splitters” is very unclear as it is not clear how many kinds of basic light splitters are required, further as explained above it is not explained what makes a light splitter “basic”. Accordingly, for the purpose of examining the claims currently pending, this limitation will be interpreted to mean “comprises a plurality of light splitters”.
Regarding claim 4, the limitation “the light splitter with N output ports (where N ≥ 2) used in the light splitting network comprises a multimode interference (MMI) device” is unclear and renders the claim indefinite. Specifically, either this light splitter lacks antecedent basis, or N should be consistent between claims 2 and 4, as the limitation of claim 2 specifies this splitter has 1 or more output ports not 2 or more. Accordingly, for the purpose of examining the claims currently pending, this limitation will be interpreted to mean “the light splitter with N output ports comprises a multimode interference (MMI) device”.
Regarding claim 6, the limitations “one effective input port, which is then coupled to the light splitter element with N2 output ports . . . ports to N2”, “can be coupled to a light splitter”, “can be different”, and “can be expanded” are unclear and render the claim indefinite. Specifically, it is unclear what makes an input port “effective” in this case. Further, it is unclear what the light splitter element with N2 output ports corresponds to as this specific recitation of the claim language has not been provided previously, and it is unclear what N2 means here. Finally, all the recitations of “can be ___” are optional language and inherently unclear. Accordingly, for the purpose of examining the claims currently pending, these limitations will be interpreted to mean “one input port, which is then coupled to a light splitter element”, “is coupled to a light splitter”, “exists”, and “exists” respectively.
Regarding claim 7, the limitations “can be freely designed” and “can be freely set” are unclear and render the claim indefinite. Specifically, “can be” is optional language as explained in various above rejections. Accordingly, for the purpose of examining the claims currently pending these limitations will be interpreted to mean “exists” and “exists” respectively.
Regarding claim 8, the limitations “can also be set to set the splitting status of the entire network” and “each node can use suitable light splitters” are unclear and render the claim indefinite. Specifically, “can also be” and “can use” are optional language as explained above. Further, it is unclear what a “suitable” light splitter is in this situation. Accordingly, for the purpose of examining the claims currently pending, these limitations will be interpreted to mean “exists” and “each node comprises a least one light splitter” respectively.
Regarding claim 9, the limitations “can be freely designed” and “can also be selected” are unclear and render the claim indefinite. Specifically, “can be” and “can also be” are optional language as explained in various rejections above. Accordingly, for the purpose of examining the claims currently pending, these limitations will be interpreted to mean “exist” and “exist” respectively.
Regarding claim 10, the limitation “wherein the overall splitting ratio . . . exhibits the characteristic of ‘strong output from the middle port and weak output from both sides’” is unclear and renders the claim indefinite. Specifically, “strong” and “weak” are relative terms here, and it is unclear what the output from the middle port would have to equal to be considered strong here. Further, “weak output from both sides” is unclear as it is unclear what weak means relatively here as well as what “output from both sides” means as no port has been specified. Accordingly, for the purpose of examining the claims currently pending, this limitation will be interpreted to mean “wherein the overall splitting ratio . . . exists”.
Regarding claim 11, the limitations “in order to improve the sidelobe suppression ratio in the far-field pattern of the optical phased array” and “the overall splitting ratio output by the light splitting network of the optical phased array follows the characteristic of "strong output from the middle port and weak output from both sides" in most ports, but the overall splitting ratio is enhanced in the strength of one or more outermost ports on both sides than the port next to these outermost ports and closer to the center ports” are unclear and render the claim indefinite. Specifically, “the sidelobe suppression ratio” and “the far-field pattern” lack antecedent basis and as this is the first time either of these limitations are being recited it is unclear how they relate to the device generally. Further, “strong” and “weak” are relative terms here, and it is unclear what the output from the middle port would have to equal to be considered strong here. Further, “weak output from both sides” is unclear as it is unclear what weak means relatively here as well as what “output from both sides” means as no port has been specified. Further “most ports” is generally unclear as it is not clear how many ports are required to meet this limitation. Finally, “enhanced in the strength of one or more outermost ports on both sides than the port next to these outermost ports and closer to the center ports” is generally unclear grammar and the exact meaning of the limitation is unclear/indefinite. Accordingly, for the purpose of examining the claims currently pending, these limitations will be interpreted to mean “in order to improve an optical quality of the array” and “the overall splitting ratio output by the light splitting network of the optical phased array exists” respectively.
Regarding claim 12, the limitations “can be freely set” and “can be freely set” are unclear and render the claim indefinite. Specifically, “can be” is optional language as explained in various rejections above and renders the claim indefinite. Accordingly, for the purpose of examining the claims currently pending, these limitations will both be considered to mean “exists” respectively.
Regarding claim 5, this claim depends on a rejected base claim and is therefore rejected for at least the reasons stated supra.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 6-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shin et al. (US 2019/0004394 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Shin teaches an optical phased array device wherein the light splitting weight of each array element can be freely set, comprising:
a light splitting network, phase shifters and emission units (See, e.g., Fig. 8 which shows a light splitting network 103 having at least one phase shifter and emission unit corresponding to phase shifter 140_1_1 and light source 110 respectively);
the light splitting network of the device can freely set the optical power weight of each array element (Note this limitation is met in light of the 112 rejection above because of the interpretation given above);
the light splitting network comprising certain types of basic light splitters (See, e.g., splitter 130_1_1 in Fig. 8 and note this limitation is met in light of the 112 rejection above), and the network adopts a tree topology structure (See, e.g., Fig. 8 which shows this), which can be freely designed, and the light splitters used by each node in the network can also be freely selected (Note these limitations are met in light of the 112 rejection above given the cited interpretation above).
Regarding claim 2, Shin teaches the device set forth above and further teaches wherein the element used by each node of the light splitting network is a light splitter with N output port (N ≥ 1), and the optical power between N ports can be evenly or unevenly distributed (See, e.g., Fig. 8 and note this limitation is met in light of the 112 rejection above given the interpretation above and the fact that all the splitters have at least one output port in Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 3, Shin teaches the device set forth above and further teaches wherein the light splitting network comprises only a few kinds of basic light splitters (Note this limitation is met in light of the 112 rejection above because Fig. 8 shows multiple splitters); the number of types of basic light splitters used in the network is greater than one, but less than the total number of light splitters used in the network, that is, at least two light splitters of the same type are used in the network (See, e.g., Fig. 8 which shows this).
Regarding claim 4, Shin teaches the device set forth above and further teaches wherein the light splitter with N output ports (where N > 2) used in the light splitting network comprises a multimode interference (MMI) device (See, e.g., paragraph [0083] which explains this and note this rejection is made in light of the 112 rejection above).
Regarding claim 6, Shin teaches the device set forth above and further teaches wherein the first layer of light splitting network has one effective input port (See, e.g., Fig. 8 which shows this in the form of OA1), which is then coupled to the light splitter element with N2 output ports to form the second layer of the network (See, e.g., Fig. 8 which shows this in the form of splitter 130_1_1), and expands the number of network output ports to N2 (See, e.g., Fig. 8); iteratively, if the network currently has L layers and the number of ports in the L layer is NL, then each port in that layer can be coupled to a light splitter with multiple output ports, the splitter coupled to each port can be different, and the number of network ports can be expanded, while the number of layers in the network is increased by one (See, e.g., Fig. 8 which shows this to be the case and note this limitation is met in light of the 112 rejection above because the various elements exist relative to each other); in this way, the network forms a tree like topology structure (See, e.g., Fig 8).
Regarding claim 7, Shin teaches the device set forth above and further teaches wherein the topology structure of the light splitting network can be freely designed, that is, the connection between ports at various levels of the network can be freely set, not limited to the form of a binary tree, nor limited to the form of a full binary tree (See, e.g., Fig. 8 and note that in light of the 112 rejections above this limitation is met); the only certainty is that the network has only one valid input port, and starting from the second layer, the number of ports present in the network is no longer fixed (See, e.g., Fig. 8 which shows this).
Regarding claim 8, Shin teaches the device set forth above and further teaches wherein when the topology structure of the light splitting network of optical phased array is fixed, that is, when the connection between ports at different levels of the network is fixed, the splitting status of each light splitter with N output ports can also be set to set the splitting status of the entire network (Note this limitation is met in light of the 112 rejection above, also see Fig. 8); the setting method is to maintain the topology structure of the entire network, that is, each node has the same number of input and output ports, but each node can use suitable light splitters according to the demand for light power distribution ratio between output ports (Note this limitation is met in light of the 112 rejections above as the nodes use light splitters).
Regarding claim 9, Shin teaches the device set forth above and further teaches wherein the light splitting setting ability of the light splitting network of optical phased array is contributed by two factors: firstly, the topology structure of the network can be freely designed, and secondly, under the determined topology structure, components with the same topology structure but different light splitting situations can also be selected (Note these limitations are met in light of the 112 rejections above because these elements exist and most of this language is optional).
Regarding claim 10, Shin teaches the device set forth above and further teaches wherein the overall splitting ratio of the light splitting network output of the optical phased array exhibits the characteristic of "strong output from the middle port and weak output from both sides" (Note this limitation is met in light of the 112 rejections above because the overall splitting ratio necessarily exists).
Regarding claim 11, Shin teaches the device set forth above and further teaches wherein in order to improve the sidelobe suppression ratio in the far-field pattern of the optical phased array, the overall splitting ratio output by the light splitting network of the optical phased array follows the characteristic of "strong output from the middle port and weak output from both sides" in most ports (Note this limitation is met in light of the 112 rejections above because one can say an optical quality is improved via the various optical elements and the overall splitting ratio exists), but the overall splitting ratio is enhanced in the strength of one or more outermost ports on both sides than the port next to these outermost ports and closer to the center ports (Note this limitation is met in light of the 112 rejection above given the interpretation used).
Regarding claim 12, Shin teaches the device set forth above and further teaches wherein the branch node position on each branch of the tree structure can be freely set, and the light splitter at each node can be freely set (Note these limitations are met in light of the 112 rejections above because the branch node position and light splitter at each node exist).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 5, the prior art, alone or in combination, fails to teach wherein uniform splitting is achieved by symmetric MMI and non-uniform splitting is achieved by asymmetric MMI in the light splitting network; the asymmetric MMI is obtained by modifying the symmetric MMI such that the geometric symmetry of the original symmetric MMI device is broken, resulting in non-uniform power splitting of the modified MMI.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mitchell Oestreich whose telephone number is (571)270-7559. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-11:00 MT.
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, Bumsuk Won can be reached at 571-272-2713. 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.
/MITCHELL T OESTREICH/Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BUMSUK WON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872