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 .
Detailed Action.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-7 and 14) in response/amendment is acknowledged. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Since the submitted amended claims on 4/21/26 is incorrect and belong to a different application (see interview summary) the examination is based on the originally filed claims submitted on 12/15/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The applicant is kindly asked to submitted any prior art documents in the information Disclosure Statement(s), if any, to be considered and made of record.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
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.
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.
Claims 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Vasilyev” et. al. . US 20110164879 A1.
Regarding claims 1, Vasilyev teaches a waveguide core (see figs. 1-5; summary) having a smooth curve as an edge and/or centerline of the waveguide core (clearly shown in at least fig. 1),
PNG
media_image1.png
348
478
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein a curvature of the smooth curve is continuous and the first order derivative of the curvature of the smooth curve with respect to an arc length of the smooth curve is continuous (clearly shown in at least fig. 1), wherein the smooth curve comprises a curve start point and a curve end point (clearly shown in at least fig. 1), wherein the derivative of the curvature of the smooth curve is zero at the curve start point and at the curve end point (clearly shown in at least fig. 1; as the tangent of the straight line at the start and the end line are zero--same as the applicant), and wherein the curvature of the smooth curve is zero at the curve start point, and is non-zero or zero at the curve end point (clearly shown in at least fig. 1; as the tangent of the straight line at the start and the end line are zero; while at the curve region in non-zero--same as the applicant).
However, Vasilyev does not explicitly state “ waveguide core” but rather states waveguide array. Nonetheless, its is obvious/well-known to those of ordinary skill in the art that such waveguide array is/known as “waveguide core” as there is no especial mean associated with “core” rather an array waveguide in parallel curved fashion as depicted in the drawings, as such configuration provides waveguide coupling to other optical devices with tunable periodic amplitude and phase responses, optical amplification (se summary).
The statements advanced in rejection of claim 1, above, as to the applicability and disclosure of the combined references and the motivation are incorporated herein in rejection of the following claims as follows:
2. The waveguide core according to claim 1, wherein the smooth curve comprises a curve segment, wherein the curve segment comprises a start point of the curve segment and an end point of the curve segment, wherein the derivative of the curvature of the smooth curve is zero at the start point of the curve segment and is zero at the end point of the curve segment, and wherein the curvature of the smooth curve is zero at the start point of the curve segment and is non-zero at the end point of the curve segment (clearly shown in at least fig. 1; as the tangent of the straight line at the start and the end line are zero; while at the curve region in non-zero--same as the applicant).
With regard to claims 3 and 4, However, Vasilyev is silent on
wherein a Cartesian coordinate system is defined with the start point of the curve segment as its origin, wherein the x-axis and y-axis are defined to have the end point of the curve segment in the first quadrant, and a tangential angle of zero radian at the start point of the curve segment, and wherein the tangential angle of any point P on the curve segment is
PNG
media_image2.png
55
227
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein the curve segment of the smooth curve is parallel to a baseline curve, wherein the baseline curve comprises a start point of the baseline curve and an end point of the baseline curve, wherein a Cartesian coordinate system is defined with the start point of the baseline curve as its origin, wherein the x-axis and y-axis are defined to have the end point of the baseline curve in the first quadrant, and a tangential angle of zero radian at the start point of the baseline curve is
PNG
media_image2.png
55
227
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein s is the length of the arc length of the smooth curve from the start point of the curve segment to a point P, wherein Ke is the curvature at the end point of the curve segment, and Be is the tangential angle at the end point of the curve segment;
Nonetheless, the configuration of the Vasilyev waveguide core is substantially similar to that of the applicant and mere modification of Vasilyev waveguide core curvature to meet such formula is in level of ordinary skill in the art and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)
5. The waveguide core according to claim 2, wherein the smooth curve further comprises a straight segment, wherein the straight segment comprises a start point of the straight segment and an end point of the straight segment, and wherein the end point of the straight segment is connected to the start point of the curve segment (clearly shown in at least fig. 1).
6. The waveguide core according to claim 2, wherein the smooth curve further comprises a circular segment, wherein a curvature of the circular segment is constant, wherein the curvature of the circular segment is equal to the curvature of the smooth curve at the end point of the curve segment, wherein the circular segment comprises a start point of the circular segment and an end point of the circular segment, and wherein the end point of the curve segment is connected to the start point of the circular segment (clearly shown in at least fig. 1).
7. The waveguide core according to claim 2, wherein the curve segment is a first curve segment and wherein the smooth curve further comprises a second curve segment according to the first curve segment, wherein the curvature at the end point of the first curve segment is the same as the curvature at the end point of the second curve segment, and wherein the end point of the first curve segment is connected to the end point of the second curve segment, or wherein the end point of the circular segment is connected to the end point of the second curve segment (clearly shown in at least fig. 1).
Claim 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Vasilyev” et. al. . US 20110164879 A1, as applied in rejection of claims 1-7 and further in view of “Kuipers” et. al. GB 2376532 A.
However, Vasilyev is silent on “wherein the waveguide core is configured to excite a whispering gallery mode”. Nonetheless, such limitation is extremely conventional and in the same field on invention is taught by Kuipers (see fig. 21 and page 6). Thus it would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan skilled in the art before effective date of the invention was made to modify Vasilyes’s waveguide core by conventionally coupling to a whispering gallery mode, since such configuration provides waveguide coupling to other optical devices with tunable periodic amplitude and phase responses, optical amplification.
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
Prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. In accordance with MPEP 707.05 the following references are pertinent in rejection of this application since they provide substantially the same information disclosure as this patent does. These references are:
US 20030063858 A1
GB 2376532 A
US 20020122627 A1
US 8111955 B2
US 20170316487 A1
US 12135286 B1
US 20250094380 A1
US 20160004298 A1
US 20050141813 A1
US 7853108 B2
US 20140085633 A1
US 20180330946 A1
US 20190018196 A1
US 20070211982 A1
US 20110164879 A1
WO 2012150197 A1
US 5940548 A
US 8582929 B2
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAVEH C KIANNI whose telephone number is (571)272-2417. The examiner can normally be reached on 9-19.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Thomas Hollweg can be reached on571-270-1739. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KAVEH C KIANNI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights