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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on August 4, 2026, has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed August 4, 2026, with respect to claims 7, 17, and 18-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 18 and 20 and the objection to claims 7, 17, and 19 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments filed August 4, 2026, with respect to claims 1-6 and 8-11, have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
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 1-3, 6, and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2007/0201784 (“KISSA”) in view of US 2019/0250435 (“MAZED”) and in view of
US 2023/0418090 (“LI”).
Regarding claim 1, KISSA teaches a VOA (30), comprising: an optical waveguide (32, 34); and electrodes (36, 38) configured to change a state of a PCM in order to change an attenuation of optical power in the optical waveguide (pars. [0024], [0067]).
KISSA does not teach that the PCM is disposed on the optical waveguide. MAZED teaches a PCM disposed on an optical waveguide (pars. [0278]-[0280]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to modify the VOA of KISSA such that the PCM is disposed on the optical waveguide, as taught by MAZED. The motivation would have been to directly induce a phase change on the light propagated by the waveguide (pars. [0278]-[0280]).
KISSA also does not teach that change in state of the PCM is between an amorphous state and a crystalline state. LI teaches electrodes configured to change a state of a PCM between an amorphous state and a crystalline state (pars. [0035], [0080], [0088]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to modify the VOA of KISSA such that the electrodes are configured to change a state of the PCM between an amorphous state and a crystalline state, as taught by LI. The motivation would have been to change the refractive index of the PCM for desired optical applications (pars. [0035], [0080], [0088]).
Regarding claim 2, MAZED further teaches that the optical waveguide comprises: a first segment comprising a first portion of the PCM, wherein the first segment provides a first attenuation of an optical signal depending on a state of the first portion of the PCM; and a second segment comprising a second portion of the PCM, wherein the second segment provides a second attenuation of the optical signal depending on a state of the second portion of the PCM (pars. [0257], [0283]).
Regarding claim 3, KISSA further teaches a first pair of electrodes (36A, 38A) to control the state of the first portion of the PCM; and a second pair of electrodes (36B, 38B) to control the state of the second portion of the PCM.
Regarding claim 6, KISSA further teaches that the electrodes and the VOA consume power only when changing the state of the PCM (par. [0024]).
Regarding claim 9, MAZED further teaches that the optical waveguide comprises a plurality of segments each comprising a portion of the PCM, wherein the plurality of segments provide a different amount of binary optical attenuation (pars. [0257], [0283]).
Regarding claim 10, KISSA in view of MOZED renders obvious the limitations of the base claim 9. The additional limitation appears to involve mere changes in dimensions. It has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and where a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than that of the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Regarding claim 11, KISSA in view of MOZED renders obvious the limitations of the base claim 9. The additional limitation appears to involve mere duplication of parts. It has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KISSA in view of MAZED and in view of LI as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of
US 2014/0193938 (“FIFE”).
KISSA in view of MAZED and in view of LI renders obvious the limitations of the base claim 3. KISSA does not teach that the first pair of electrodes are doped with opposite type dopants, and the second pair of electrodes are doped with opposite type dopants. FIFE teaches pairs of electrodes doped with opposite type electrodes (pars. [0020]-[0026]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to modify the pairs of electrodes of KISSA in view of MAZED and in view of LI so as to be doped with opposite type dopants, as taught by FIFE. The motivation would have been to allow for regulation of electrical current.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KISSA in view of MAZED as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2023/0104033 (“PLEROS”).
KISSA in view of MAZED and in view of LI renders obvious the limitations of the base claim 1. KISSA does not teach that the PCM comprises at least one of: germanium- antimony-tellurium or Germanium-antimony-selenium-tellurium. PLEROS teaches a PCM comprising at least one of: germanium- antimony-tellurium or Germanium-antimony-selenium-tellurium (par. [0072]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to modify the PCM of KISSA in view of MAZED and in view of LI so as to comprise at least one of: germanium- antimony-tellurium or Germanium-antimony-selenium-tellurium, as taught by PLEROS. The motivation would have been to allow for gradual phase change (par. [0072]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 14, and 18-20 are allowed.
Claim 5 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 5, 14, and 18-20, the prior art of record, whether taken individually or in combination, when considered in light of the claimed subject matter as a whole as interpreted in light of the present Specification, fails to disclose or render obvious that a voltage between the first pair of electrodes is controlled by a first bit in a digital control signal and a voltage between the second pair of electrodes is controlled by a second bit in the digital control signal.
Regarding claim 7, the prior art of record, whether taken individually or in combination, when considered in light of the claimed subject matter as a whole as interpreted in light of the present Specification, fails to disclose or render obvious that the VOA does not require calibration.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JERRY M BLEVINS whose telephone number is (571)272-8581. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - 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 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.
/JERRY M BLEVINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights