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 information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/8/24 and 6/27/25 were filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-20 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.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. It is not clear how the correlation function is determined, nor how the correlation function is generated, and therefore it is also not clear how the localized widths are determined. Claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 inherit this deficiency from their respect independent claim. Further, it is unclear how the localized thickness variations and the determined localized widths of the waveguide are determined, given the function itself is unclear.
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) 1-9, 11-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mason et al. (US 2007/0297732 A1).
Re. Claim 1, Mason et al. discloses a method for fabricating a waveguide 800, comprising:
measuring localized thickness variations h of at least one waveguide layer 802 (Figs. 8A-8C; [0098]), wherein the at least one waveguide layer 802 comprises a second order nonlinear optical medium ([0041], [0091]);
determining a correlation function for a given phase matching condition, wherein the correlation function accounts for the measured localized thickness variations, and the given phase matching condition is based on modal phase matching between two or more modes of light propagating in the waveguide (Figs. 2-7; [0098]);
determining localized widths of the waveguide, wherein the localized widths are determined from the correlation function and correspond to the measured localized thickness variations ([0098], [0128] claim 19); and
fabricating a width of the waveguide based on each of the localized widths (Figs. 8A-8E; [0098]).
Re. Claim 2, Mason et al. discloses the fabricated waveguide achieves the given phase matching condition ([0096]-[0098]).
Re. Claim 3, Mason et al. discloses the localized widths of the waveguide comprise localized width variations ([0096]-[0098], [0128] claims 1 and 19).
Re. Claim 4, Mason et al. discloses the measured localized thickness variation decreases in thickness, the corresponding localized width increases, wherein as the measured localized thickness variation increases in thickness, the corresponding localized width decreases ([0096]-[0098]).
Re. Claim 5, Mason et al. discloses by fabricating the width of the waveguide, the given phase matching condition remains satisfied along a length of the waveguide in accordance with the measured localized thickness variations ([0096]-[0098]).
Re. Claim 6, Mason et al. discloses the correlation function is a transfer function between the localized thickness variations of the at least one waveguide layer and the determined localized widths of the waveguide ([0096]-[0098]).
Re. Claim 7, Mason et al. discloses the transfer function is generated from a finite element model ([0096]-[0098]).
Re. Claim 8, Mason et al. discloses a method for fabricating a waveguide 800 as discussed above. Additionally, Mason et al. discloses coupling the waveguide 800 to a light source, wherein the waveguide is configured to receive light from the light source; and coupling the waveguide to an output coupler, wherein the waveguide is configured to output light to the output coupler ([0120]).
Re. Claim 9, Mason et al. discloses the light source is configured to generate light at a first mode to the waveguide, wherein the waveguide is configured to convert the light at the first mode to a second mode, and to output light at the second mode to the output coupler ([0095]).
Re. Claim 11, Mason et al. discloses as the measured localized thickness variation decreases in thickness, the corresponding localized width increases, wherein as the measured localized thickness variation increases in thickness, the corresponding localized width decreases ([0096]-[0098]).
Re. Claim 12, Mason et al. discloses that by fabricating the width of the waveguide, the given phase matching condition remains satisfied along a length of the waveguide in accordance with the measured localized thickness variations ([0096]-[0098]).
Re. Claim 13, Mason et al. discloses the correlation function is a transfer function between the localized thickness variations of the at least one waveguide layer and the determined localized widths of the waveguide ([0096]-[0098]).
Re. Claim 14, Mason et al. discloses the transfer function is generated from a finite element model ([0096]-[0098]).
Re. Claim 15, Mason et al. discloses a method for fabricating a waveguide 800 as discussed above. Mason et al. also discloses a program product comprising a non-transitory processor-readable medium on which program instructions configured to be executed by at least one processor are embodied, wherein by executing the program instructions, the at least one processor is configured to execute the method discussed above ([0125]-[0126]).
Re. Claim 16, Mason et al. discloses as the measured localized thickness variation decreases in thickness, the corresponding localized width increases, wherein as the measured localized thickness variation increases in thickness, the corresponding localized width decreases ([0096]-[0098]).
Re. Claim 17, Mason et al. discloses the correlation function is a transfer function between the localized thickness variations of the at least one waveguide layer and the determined localized widths of the waveguide ([0096]-[0098]).
Re. Claim 18, Mason et al. discloses the transfer function is generated from a finite element model ([0096]-[0098]).
Re. Claim 20, Mason et al. discloses the at least one processor provides control signals based on the localized widths to a fabrication system for fabricating the waveguide ([0098], and [0128] claim 19).
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.
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.
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(s) 10 and 19 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mason et al. (US 2007/0297732 A1).
Re. Claim 10, Mason et al. discloses the method as discussed above, but fails to disclose the waveguide, the light source, and the output coupler are implemented on a photonics circuit.
Photonics circuits are well known in the art, and one of ordinary skill would have found the claimed arrangement obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the purpose of providing the light source, waveguide, and output coupler in a discrete optical element. “A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton” – ‘[w]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.” KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Re. Claim 19, Mason et al. discloses the program product as discussed above, but fails to disclose the received measurements of localized thickness variations correspond to measurements received from a reflectometer.
Reflectometers are well known in the art, and commonly used in measurement apparatuses, and one of ordinary skill would have found the claimed arrangement obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. “A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton” – ‘[w]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.” KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See the attached PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to R. PEACE whose telephone number is (571)272-8580. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 pm.
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.
/RHONDA S PEACE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874 1/26/26