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 .
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.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s Amendment filed July 02, 2026 has been fully considered and entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s argument filed June 12, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Solgaard fails to disclose “a first array of beam-forming elements, wherein the first array of optical ports is optically coupled to the first array of beam-forming elements.”
The examiner disagrees.
As detailed in office action (Page 4): a first array of beam-forming elements (Lenslet array 26), wherein the first array of optical ports (Input fibers 14a-c) is optically coupled to the first array of beam-forming elements (FIG.1). The claim does require that the first array of optical ports is directly coupled to the first array of beam-forming elements.
Applicant argues that Solgaard fails to disclose “a first set of optical elements to cause an area of a projected beam-array field at a plane of the first array of beam-forming elements to be larger than an area of the first array of beam- forming elements, wherein the first set of optical elements is in a region of optical coupling between the first array of beam-forming elements and the first array of beam steering elements.”
The examiner disagrees.
As detailed in Office action (Page 3 and 4), Interpreting the magnified image formation (Column 6 lines 34-37) as an expanded projected beam-array field at the lenslet array plane directly satisfies the claim requirement where the minimum convex region of the back-projected beams exceeds the physical or footprint area of the beam-forming array. Meaning the beams expand at the plane of first array of the beam forming elements (lenslet array 26).
Because Solgaard utilizes cooperating optical elements, such as lenses, gratings, and mirror configurations, dimensioned and positioned in the optical coupling region(FIG. 1), the geometric constraint of a larger back-projected beam area is an unavoidable physical consequence of the layout.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 14-17, and 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Solgaard et al. US6289145B1, here after Solgaard.
Regarding claim 1, Solgaard discloses an optical switch(FIG 1. Optical switch 10), comprising: a first array of optical ports(Input fibers 14a-c); a first array of beam-forming elements(lenslet (microlens) array 26), wherein the first array of optical ports is optically coupled to the first array of beam-forming elements(FIG. 1); a first array of beam steering elements(FIG.1 Switching matrix 18a. FIG 2. Micro mirror array 48a), wherein the first array of beam-forming elements is optically coupled to the first array of beam steering elements(FIG. 1); a first set of optical elements(Bulk lenses 28 and grating 42) to cause an area of a projected beam-array field at a plane of the first array of beam-forming elements(Lenslet array 26) to be larger than an area of the first array of beam-forming elements(Column 6 lines 34-37: Lenslets form magnified image. This is interpreted at the beams expands at the plane of the first array of beam-forming elements (lenslet array 26)), wherein the first set of optical elements is in a region of optical coupling between the first array of beam-forming elements and the first array of beam steering elements(FIG. 1); a second array of beam steering elements(FIG 2. micromirror array 48b), wherein the first array of beam steering elements is optically coupled to the second array of beam steering elements(FIG. 2); a second array of beam-forming elements(lenslet (microlens) array 32), wherein the second array of beam steering elements is optically coupled to the second array of beam-forming elements(FIG. 1); and a second array of optical ports(Output fibers 24a-c), wherein the second array of beam-forming elements is optically coupled to the second array of optical ports(FIG. 1).
Regarding claim 4, Solgaard discloses the device of claim 1. Solgaard further discloses a second set of optical elements(bulk lens 34 and grating 44) to cause an area of a projected beam-array field at a plane of the second array of beam-forming elements(Lenslet (Microlens)array 32) to be larger than an area of the second array of beam-forming elements, wherein the second set of optical elements(bulk lens 34) is in a region of optical coupling between the second array of beam steering elements(FIG 2. micromirror array 48b) and the second array of beam-forming elements(FIG 1. (Column 6 lines 34-37: Lenslets form magnified image. This is interpreted at the beams expands at the plane of the first array of beam-forming elements (lenslet array 32).
Regarding claim 14, Solgaard discloses the device of claim 1. Solgaard further discloses the first array of beam steering elements(Micro mirror array 48a) and the second array of beam steering elements(Micro mirror array 48b) each comprise multiple independent beam steering elements(Mirrors 46a-f) to direct optical beams independently (FIG. 2. Column 4 lines 12-18).
Regarding claim 15, Solgaard discloses the device of claim 1. Solgaard further discloses at least one of the first array of beam steering elements(Micro mirror array 48a) or the second array of beam steering elements(Micro mirror array 48b) is an array of reflective beam steering elements (Column 5 lines 37-41).
Regarding claim 16, Solgaard discloses the device of claim 1. Solgaard further discloses at least one optical element of the first set of optical elements (Bulk lenses 28 and grating 42) in the region of optical coupling between the first array of beam-forming elements (Lenslet array 26) and the first array of beam steering elements (FIG 2. Micro mirror array 48a) is a reflective optical element(Column 3 line 63-Column 4 line 1).
Regarding claim 17, Solgaard discloses an optical switch(FIG 1. Optical switch 10), comprising: a first set of optical elements (Bulk lenses 28 and grating 42) to cause an area of a projected beam-array field at a plane of a first array of beam-forming elements (Lenslet array 26) of the optical device to be larger than an area of the first array of beam-forming elements(Column 6 lines 34-37: Lenslets form magnified image. This is interpreted at the beams expands at the plane of the first array of beam-forming elements (lenslet array 26)), wherein the first set of optical elements is in a region of optical coupling between the first array of beam-forming elements (Bulk lenses 28 and grating 42) and a first array of beam steering elements of the optical device(FIG.1 Switching matrix 18a. FIG 2. Micro mirror array 48a); and a second set of optical elements(bulk lens 34 and grating 44) to cause an area of a projected beam-array field at a plane of a second array of beam-forming elements (Lenslet array 32) of the optical device to be larger than an area of the second array of beam-forming elements(Column 6 lines 34-37: Lenslets form magnified image. This is interpreted at the beams expands at the plane of the first array of beam-forming elements (lenslet array 26)), wherein the second set of optical elements (bulk lens 34 and grating 44) is in a region of optical coupling between a second array of beam steering elements (FIG 2. Micro mirror array 48b) of the optical device and the second array of beam-forming elements(FIG.1 Switching matrix 18a. FIG 2. Micro mirror array 48b).
Regarding claim 20, Solgaard discloses an optical device(FIG 1. Optical switch 10), comprising: an array of optical ports(Input fibers 14a-c; an array of beam-forming elements(Lenslet array 26) optically coupled to the array of optical ports(FIG 1); an array of beam steering elements(FIG.1 Switching matrix 18a. FIG 2. Micro mirror array 48a) optically coupled to the array of beam-forming elements(FIG 1); and a set of optical elements (Bulk lenses 28 and grating 42) to cause a size of a projected beam-array field at a plane of the array of beam-forming elements to be larger than a size of the array of beam-forming elements(Column 6 lines 34-37: Lenslets form magnified image. This is interpreted at the beams expands at the plane of the first array of beam-forming elements (lenslet array 26)), wherein the set of optical elements is in a region of optical coupling between the array of beam-forming elements and the array of beam steering elements(FIG 1).
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.
Claims 2, 3, 5-6, 9-10, 12-13 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Solgaard et al. US6289145B1, here after Solgaard, and in view of Ishikawa et al (US 20130272650 A1), here after Ishikawa.
Regarding claim 2 and 18, Solgaard discloses the device of claim 1 and 17. Solgaard fails to discloses an area of a beam-array field at a plane of the first array of beam steering element is larger than an area corresponding to beam-forming elements, in the first array of beam-forming elements.
Ishikawa teaches discloses an area of a beam-array field at a plane of the first array of beam steering elements(grating 146) is larger than an area corresponding to beam-forming elements(Microlens array 144) in the first array of beam-forming elements(FIG.14. Par. [0017] and [0018]. By forming an enlarged image of the beam-forming array on the steering element, the optical element necessarily causes the area of the beam-array field at the plane of the steering-element array to be larger than the area corresponding to the beam-forming elements of the microlens array.)
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use an enlarged-image configuration in the switch of Solgaard to ensure adequate beam coverage of the steering-element array and reduce clipping and loss, which is a routine design choice when selecting imaging magnification in array-to-array optical systems.
Regarding claim 3, Solgaard discloses the device of claim 1. Solgaard fails to discloses the first set of optical elements provides a beam spacing that matches a pitch between adjacent beam steering elements of the first array of beam steering elements.
Ishikawa teaches discloses the first set of optical elements (Macro lens pair 145) provides a beam spacing that matches a pitch between adjacent beam steering elements (Grating 146) of the first array of beam steering elements(FIG.14. Par. [0017]:an optical cross-connect in which a lens pair forms an enlarged image of a microlens array on a MEMS array). By forming an image of the array on the steering element array, the optical elements are configured such that the spacing between the beams and the steering array corresponds to the pitch of the steering elements, thereby ensuring a one-to-one mapping between port channels and steering elements. Ishikawa therefore teaches configuring the optical elements so that beam spacing at the steering element array matches the steering-elements pitch, as claimed.
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the optical switch of Solgaard’s imaging optics by selecting the magnification such that the beam of spacing in the first-steering element array matches the pitch between the adjacent steering elements, in order to ensure reliable one-to-one coupling between channels and steering elements and to avoid overlap or unused steering area. Doing so is a routine design choice when using imaging optics to map an input port array onto a steering-element and merely optimized Solgaard’s known systems using the teaching of Ishikawa to achieve predictable alignment results.
Regarding claim 5 and 19, Solgaard discloses the device of claim 1 and 17. Solgaard fails to discloses an area of a beam-array field at a plane of the second array of beam steering elements is larger than an area corresponding to beam-forming elements in the second array of beam-forming elements.
Ishikawa teaches discloses an area of a beam-array field at a plane of the first array of beam steering elements (grating 146) is larger than an area corresponding to beam-forming elements (micro lens array 144), in the first array of beam-forming elements (FIG. 14. Par. [0017] and [0018]. By forming an enlarged image of the beam-forming array on the steering element, the optical element necessarily causes the area of the beam-array field at the plane of the steering-element array to be larger than the area corresponding to the beam-forming elements of the microlens array).
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use an enlarged-image configuration in the switch of Solgaard to ensure adequate beam coverage of the steering-element array and reduce clipping and loss, which is a routine design choice when selecting imaging magnification in array-to-array optical systems.
Regarding claim 6, Solgaard discloses the device of claim 1. Solgaard fails to discloses the second set of optical elements provides a beam spacing that matches a pitch between adjacent beam steering elements of the second array of beam steering elements.
Ishikawa teaches discloses the second set of optical elements (Macro lens pair 145) provides a beam spacing that matches a pitch between adjacent beam steering elements(grating 146) of the Second array of beam steering elements (FIG.14. Par. [0017]: an optical cross-connect in which a lens pair forms an enlarged image of a microlens array on a MEMS array). By forming an image of the array on the steering element array, the optical elements are configured such that the spacing between the beams and the steering array corresponds to the pitch of the steering elements, thereby ensuring a one-to-one mapping between port channels and steering elements. Ishikawa therefore teaches configuring the optical elements so that beam spacing at the steering element array matches the steering-elements pitch, as claimed.
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the optical switch of Solgaard’s imaging optics by selecting the magnification such that the beam of spacing in the first-steering element array matches the pitch between the adjacent steering elements, in order to ensure reliable one-to-one coupling between channels and steering elements and to avoid overlap or unused steering area. Doing so is a routine design choice when using imaging optics to map an input port array onto a steering-element and merely optimized Solgaard’s known systems using the teaching of Ishikawa to achieve predictable alignment results.
Regarding claim 9, Solgaard discloses the device of claim 1. Solgaard further disclose a first array of beam steering elements (FIG 2. Micro mirror array 48a) and a second array of beam steering elements (FIG 2. Micro mirror array 48b). Solgaard fails to disclose a beam waist of a given optical beam propagating in the optical switch is near a midpoint between the first array of beam steering elements and the second array of beam steering elements.
Ishikawa teaches the focal length of a switching lens 22 to be equal to the Rayleigh length and placing that lens at equal distances from the beam steering elements (MEMs arrays 20 and 21), such that a Gaussian beam waist is formed between the arrays and arrays (FIG 1. Par. [0109]: Image on light deflector array 20 is a beam waist. Par. [0119] and [0131).
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to design the Solgaard switch so that the beam waist of a given optical beam is located near a midpoint between the first and second beam steering elements, in order to reduce spot size and steering angle.
Regarding claim 10, Solgaard discloses the optical switch of claim 1 Solgaard further discloses a first array of beam forming elements (Lenslet array 26) and a first array of beam steering elements (FIG 2. Micro mirror array 48a). Solgaard fails to disclose a size of the first array of beam-forming elements is smaller than a corresponding size of the first array of beam steering elements.
Ishikawa teaches using a beam forming element (waveguide lens system 7) to form focused spots of controlled size on a larger beam steering element (MEMS array 30). (FIG 1. Par. [0121] and [0127]: A two-dimensional MEMS mirror array whose pitch and total width/height are chosen to accommodate all wavelengths/ports).
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to implement Solgaard’s optical switch such that a size of the first array of beam-forming elements is smaller than a corresponding size of the first array of beam steering element, in view of Ishikawa’s teaching. Doing so represents a routine design choice to provide a larger steering aperture while keeping the beam-forming array compact and easier to fabrication.
Regarding claim 12, Solgaard discloses the device of claim 1. Solgaard further discloses comprising optical coupling between the first array of beam steering elements (lenslet array 26) and the second array of beam steering elements (lenslet array 32) (FIG.1). Solgaard fails to teach a Fourier lens between the first and second array of beam steering elements, wherein a beam steering requirement associated with the first array of beam steering elements is approximately equal to one-half of a size of the second array of beam steering elements divided by a focal length of the Fourier lens.
Ishikawa teaches a Fourier lens (FIG. 1. Fourier optical lenses 23) between a first and second beam steering elements (FIG.1. light deflector arrays 20 and 21). Ishikawa fails to teach a beam steering requirement associated with the first array of beam steering elements is approximately equal to one-half of a size of the second array of beam steering elements divided by a focal length of the Fourier lens.
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Solgaard's device to include the Fourier lens as taught by Ishikawa between the lenslet arrays to improve coupling efficiency and angular resolution. Such a modification would be recognized as a known technique to improve coupling efficiency and angular resolution. Furthermore, Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, using small-angle trigonometry, to set the beam steering requirement of the first array to approximately one-half of the size of the second array of beam steering elements divided by a distance between the first array of beam steering elements and the second array of beam steering elements. It would have been an obvious matter of routine design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art to ensure that beams from the first array can reach the outermost positions in the second array with minimal tilt.
Regarding claim 13, Solgaard discloses the device of claim 1. Solgaard further disclose a first array of beam steering elements (FIG 2. Micro mirror array 48a) and a second array of beam steering elements (FIG 2. Micro mirror array 48b). Solgaard fails to disclose a beam waist of a given optical beam propagating in the optical switch is near a midpoint between the first array of beam steering elements and the second array of beam steering elements.
Ishikawa teaches the focal length of a switching lens 22 to be equal to the Rayleigh length and placing that lens at equal distances from the beam steering elements (MEMs arrays 20 and 21), such that a Gaussian beam waist is formed between the arrays and arrays (FIG 1. Par. [0109]: Image on light deflector array 20 is a beam waist. Par. [0119] and [0131).
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to design the Solgaard switch so that the beam waist of a given optical beam is located near a midpoint between the first and second beam steering elements, in order to reduce spot size and steering angle.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Solgaard et al. US6289145B1, hereafter Solgaard.
Regarding claim 7, Solgaard discloses the device of claim 1. Solgaard further disclose a first array of beam steering elements (FIG 2. Micro mirror array 48a) and a second array of beam steering elements (FIG 2. Micro mirror array 48b) . Solgaard fails to teach a beam steering requirement associated with the first array of beam steering elements is approximately equal to one-half of a size of the second array of beam steering elements divided by a distance between the first array of beam steering elements and the second array of beam steering elements.
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, using small-angle trigonometry, to set the beam steering requirement of the first array to approximately one-half of the size of the second array of beam steering elements divided by a distance between the first array of beam steering elements and the second array of beam steering elements. It would have been an obvious matter of routine design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art to ensure that beams from the first array can reach the outermost positions in the second array with minimal tilt.
Regarding claim 8, Solgaard discloses the optical switch of claim 1. Solgaard further disclose a first array of beam steering elements (FIG 2. Micro mirror array 48a) and a second array of beam steering elements (FIG 2. Micro mirror array 48b) arranged symmetrically about the center plane (FIG 2,6 and 7.Column 8 lines 24-27). Solgaard fails to disclose at a rest position, each beam steering element of the first array of beam steering elements is to direct a respective optical beam to approximately a same location on the second array of beam steer elements.
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, given Solgaard’s symmetric arrangement and its use of common symmetry plane 60 and symmetry mirror 58, to choose a neutral (rest) tilt for the first array such that all mirrors, when unbiased, direct their beams to substantially the same reference location on the second array, thereby simplifying calibration, control, and alignment of the switch.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Solgaard et al. US6289145B1, here after Solgaard, and in view of Presley et al (US20090220233A1), here after Presley.
Regarding claim 11, Solgaard discloses the device of claim 1. Solgaard further disclose a second array of beam steering elements (FIG 2. Micro mirror array 48b) and a second array of beam forming elements (Lenslet array 32).
Presley teaches optical elements(free space optics 120) are designed with controlled aperture/clear apertures and beam waists (Par. [0072]).
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include an aperture element in a region of optical coupling between the second array of beam steering elements and the second array of beam forming elements in Solgaard’s optical switch, in view of Presley’s teaching that placing apertures in coupling regions is a routine way to control beam extent and stray light.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAJANAE N GREEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2188. The examiner can normally be reached Tues-Fri. 5:30a-3:30p.
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.
/TAJANAE NICOLE GREEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2874
/UYEN CHAU N LE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights