DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the election filed on July 2, 2026. In accordance with this election, claims 3, 9, and 14 have been amended. The amendments to the specification are acknowledged.
Claims 1-23 are pending (claims 7-20, 22, and 23 are “Withdrawn” as being related to non-elected Groups). Claims 1-6 and 21 are examined herein in a first office action on the merits, with claim 1 as the sole independent claim.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-6 and 21, in the reply filed on July 2, 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 7-20, 22, and 23 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected Groups, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Information Disclosure Statement
The prior art documents submitted by Applicant in the Information Disclosure Statements filed on August 27, 2024 and March 12, 2024, have been considered and made of record (note attached copy of forms PTO-1449).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the configuration of the claimed features in claim 1 of a “polarization-sensitive optical antenna” must be shown in the drawings, with an express reference number, or those feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-6 and 21 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. Claim 1 is rejected herein for the following reason(s), while claims 2-6 and 21 are also rejected at least as being in dependent claim form.
Regarding independent claim 1, the phrase “wherein at least one of the first optical coupler or the second optical coupler is configured as a polarization-sensitive optical antenna that has an angular radiation function…” is vague and indefinite because the clear metes-and-bounds (scope) of such features are unclear based on the original specification and drawings. First, such “antenna” feature is not shown in any drawings, and further, the only mentions of an “antenna” are with general recitations in the ABS; paras [0004], [0008]; and Claims 1 and 4. However, there is no clear and full explanation of the scope and range of such what a feature (the “optical coupler”) is as being “configured” as a polarization-sensitive optical antenna. Is this term an “antenna” itself in the plain and ordinary meaning of “antenna” in the art? Does “functioning” in a certain way change an “optical coupler” into an “antenna”? Because of this vague and indefinite language found in claim 1, all claims 1-6 and 21 are herein rejected under the meaning of indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim 3 is further rejected as being vague and indefinite for the “in a vicinity of” language. The term “vicinity” in claim 3’s claim body is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “vicinity” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Notably, it is not clear what the claim would limit as to being outside of such “vicinity” (and not encompassed by such language). Claim 3 is therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
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.
Claims 1, 4, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan et al. WO 2023/0003550 A1 (which has matured into corresponding U.S. Patent No. 12,353,030 B2), and further in view of Onawa US 2016/0025928 A1.
Chan et al. WO 2023/0003550 A1 teaches (ABS; Figs. 1A, 2, 5A; corresponding text, in particular pages 4-7, page 13, page 30; Claims) an apparatus 100 / 200 / 500+ (Figs. 1A, 2, 5A) comprising: a photonic integrated circuit (“PIC”, ABS) comprising a first optical coupler (waveguide on input side of PIC) coupled to an optical source (input light / laser) and a second optical coupler (waveguide on output side of PIC) coupled to one or more photonic circuit elements integrated in the photonic integrated circuit (detecting and sensing; many photonic elements found on chip); and a non-reciprocal optical element optically coupled to the first optical coupler and the second optical coupler (at least 501 is non-reciprocal, many features of Chan do not allow light to back-travel).
Regarding claim 1, Chan WO ‘550 does not expressly and exactly teach the feature in which “wherein at least one of the first optical coupler or the second optical coupler is configured as a polarization-sensitive optical antenna that has an angular radiation function comprising at least (1) a peak intensity of a transverse magnetic optical field associated with a first angular direction, and (2) a peak intensity of a transverse electric optical field associated with a second angular direction different from the first angular direction.”
Onawa US 2016/0025928 A1 teaches (ABS; Fig. 8; see paragraphs [0105], [0131], [0137], [0138]; Claims) an optical waveguiding / coupling apparatus that includes features which are configured for an angular radiation function comprising at least (1) a peak intensity of a transverse magnetic optical field associated with a first angular direction, and (2) a peak intensity of a transverse electric optical field associated with a second angular direction different from the first angular direction (see Fig. 8 of Onawa and paragraphs [0137] , [0138]). Onawa teaches that these functions and angular radiation properties of the TM and TE optical fields are advantageous and employed for polarization properties to improve optical coupling of the defined modes.
Since Chan and Onawa are both from the same field of endeavor, the purpose disclosed by Onawa would have been recognized in the pertinent art of Chan.
A person having ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the current application would have recognized the teaching of Onawa, to have at least part of the coupler / waveguide design to have both properties (1) and (2) (both polarization sensitive features for peak intensity of TM and TE associated with two different angular directions), into the base design of the PIC with non-reciprocal optical element adjacent two distinct optical couplers, to allow for the improvement of an “antenna” type implementation of the TM and TE modes to improve coupling design, with isolation a potential key for propagation. Further, it would have required no undue burden or unnecessary experimentation to arrive at such feature of the “antenna” type properties with angular radiation functions (of Onawa). See KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727 (2007). For these reasons, independent claim 1 is found obvious over Chan WO ‘550 and further in view of Onawa (henceforth “COMBO”).
Regarding dependent claim 4, the features of both the 1st and 2nd couplers are shown by Onama above, with the polarization sensitive properties and “antenna” type implementation of COMBO. KSR.
Regarding claim 21, in the hypothetical design of COMBO’s base claim 1 features element, the 1st and 2nd couplers include wave propagation paths (as “waveguides”) and such signal also propagates through the non-reciprocal element. Therefore, all structural integration and ordering is found in COMBO. KSR.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan et al. WO 2023/0003550 A1 (which has matured into corresponding U.S. Patent No. 12,353,030 B2), and further in view of Onawa US 2016/0025928 A1 (for base independent claim 1), and further in view of Pintus et al. WO 2023/004112 A1.
Regarding sole examined independent claim 1, this claim is found obvious over COMBO (see section (13) above for the full obviousness rejection).
Regarding claims 2-3, the prior art in COMBO does not expressly and exactly teach that the non-reciprocal element includes magneto-optic material, or creates a magnetic field in a vicinity of at least a portion of the magneto-optical material.
Pintus et al. WO 2023/004112 A1 (ABS; Figs. 2A-2D; corresponding text, in particular paragraphs [0012], [0020]; Claims) that the non-reciprocal element includes magneto-optic material (TITLE), and creates a magnetic field in a vicinity of at least a portion of the magneto-optical material, for such integrated design and control. Pintus teaches common magneto-optical features for modulation control of signal(s).
Since COMBO and Pintus are all from the same field of endeavor, the purpose disclosed by Pintus would have been recognized in the pertinent art of COMBO.
A person having ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the current application would have recognized the teaching of Pintus, to recognize and incorporate magneto-optic controllable functionality for the optical waveguide / coupler control, for the known resultant integration of modulation using magneto-optics, into the base design of the PIC of COMBO with non-reciprocal optical element adjacent two distinct optical couplers, and polarization sensitivity for mode coupling, as part of the coupler feature by recognizing magnetic control and improved variability of a magnetic field. Further, it would have required no undue burden or unnecessary experimentation to arrive at such feature of having magneto-optical control as part of the modulation because of the known electrical control and improved optical attributes. See KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727 (2007). For these reasons, dependent claims 2 and 3 are found obvious over COMBO and further in view of Pintus.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan et al. WO 2023/0003550 A1 (which has matured into corresponding U.S. Patent No. 12,353,030 B2), and further in view of Onawa US 2016/0025928 A1 (for base independent claim 1), and further in view of Watts et al. US 2022/0146903 A1.
Regarding sole examined independent claim 1, this claim is found obvious over COMBO (see section (13) above for the full obviousness rejection).
Regarding claims 5-6, the prior art in COMBO does not expressly and exactly teach that the 1st and 2nd optical couplers are optical phase arrays, and can use optical gratings coupled to respective phase shifters for such phase array property and design.
Watts et al. US 2022/0146903 A1 teaches (ABS; Figs. 5, 26A-B, 28, 30A-B; paragraphs [0017], [0095], [0121]; Claims) that optical couplers (could be used with multiple coupler design(s)) are optical phase arrays, and can use optical gratings coupled to respective phase shifters for such phase array property and design.
Since COMBO and Watts are all from the same field of endeavor, the purpose disclosed by Watts would have been recognized in the pertinent art of COMBO.
A person having ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the current application would have recognized the teaching of Watts, to recognize the formation of optical couplers (with multiple coupler design) are optical phase arrays, and can use optical gratings coupled to respective phase shifters for such phase arrays, into the base design of the PIC of COMBO with non-reciprocal optical element adjacent two distinct optical couplers, and polarization sensitivity for mode coupling, as part of the coupler feature by recognizing phase array features for improved modulation. Further, it would have required no undue burden or unnecessary experimentation to arrive at such feature of the optical phased arrays as the couplers into COMBO. See KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727 (2007). For these reasons, dependent claims 5 and 6 are found obvious over COMBO and further in view of Watts.
Inventorship
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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: PTO-892 form references B and C (to Ni US ‘371 and Watts US ‘630), which pertain to the state of the art of optical waveguides using antenna arrays.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Daniel Petkovsek whose telephone number is (571) 272-4174. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 - 6 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.
/DANIEL PETKOVSEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874 July 28, 2026
Prosecution Insights