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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan on 03/30/2023. A certified copy of the JP2023-055019 was received 04/17/2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The prior art documents submitted by applicant in the Information Disclosure Statements filed 03/27/2024 have all been considered and made of record.
Joint Inventors
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 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 1-13 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.
With regards to claim 1, Lines 6-7 and 10 respectively recite “…a width of each of the plurality of input taper portions becomes narrower as it is away from a connection end with the optical coupling main body…” and “…a width of the output taper portion becomes narrower as it is away from a connection end with the optical coupling main body…”. It is unclear whether the width of the portions is changing with time and/or are narrowing only because they are away from the optical coupling main body, if the tapering itself is being further described, or if some other interpretation was intended. The claim is indefinite because the wording of the above recitations creates confusion regarding scope of the limitations.
Examiner’s note: For the purpose of further examination, the above limitations have been interpreted as describing the direction in which the taper portions are tapering.
Claims 2-13 inherit the indefiniteness of claim 1 on which they depend.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Saida (JP 2000081534 A).
With regards to claim 1, Saida discloses a multimode interference type optical coupler that couples a plurality of laser lights of different wavelengths, comprising:
an optical coupling main body (Saida/Fig7/Optical coupling main body 40);
a plurality of input taper portions which are tapered input ports (Fig7/Input taper portions 42a-b), wherein the plurality of input taper portions are disposed on an input side of the optical coupling main body and a width of each of the plurality of input taper portions becomes narrower as it is away from a connection end with the optical coupling main body (Fig7); and
one output taper portion which is a tapered output port (Fig7/Output taper portion 44a), wherein the output taper portion is disposed on an output side of the optical coupling main body and a width of the output taper portion becomes narrower as it is away from a connection end with the optical coupling main body (Fig7),
wherein a width of a connection end of the output taper portion (Fig7/A width of a connection end of the output taper portion [Indicated below and to the right]) is wider than a width of any one of connection ends of the plurality of input taper portions (Fig7/A width of any one of connection ends of the plurality of input taper portions [Indicated below and to the left]).
PNG
media_image1.png
106
345
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regards to claim 2, Saida discloses the optical coupler according to claim 1, wherein the optical coupler is a 3-input and 1-output type or a 2-input and 1-output type (Fig7; Paragraph 46).
With regards to claims 3, Saida discloses the optical coupler according to claim 1. Saida is silent regarding whether or not the plurality of different wavelengths being visible light wavelengths. However, the particular light applied to the optical coupler represents an intended use of the optical coupler. It has been held that “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does” (Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc. 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990)); that a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim (Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)); and that if a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the preamble, then it meets the claim (In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997)). See MPEP § 2111.02, II and MPEP § 2114, II.
With regards to claim 4, Saida discloses the optical coupler according to claim 3. Saida is silent regarding whether or not the visible light wavelengths are a red wavelength of 610 nm or more and 750 nm or less, a green wavelength of 500 nm or more and 560 nm or less, and a blue wavelength of 435 nm or more and 480 nm or less. However, the particular light applied to the optical coupler represents an intended use of the optical coupler. It has been held that “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does” (Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc. 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990)); that a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim (Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)); and that if a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the preamble, then it meets the claim (In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997)). See MPEP § 2111.02, II and MPEP § 2114, II.
With regards to claim 7, Saida discloses the optical coupler according to claim 1, further comprising:
a substrate made of a material different from lithium niobate (Paragraph 31/ “…silicon substrate”…); and
an optical coupling functional layer formed on a main surface of the substrate and made of a lithium niobate film, wherein the optical coupler is formed in the optical coupling functional layer (Paragraph 43/ “…The present invention is applied to… a lithium niobate optical waveguide…”).
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 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.
Claims 5-6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saida (JP 2000081534 A) as applied to claim 1 above in view of Okayama (JP 2015152729 A).
With regards to claim 5, Saida discloses the optical coupler according to claim 1, wherein the optical coupling main body has a first MMI type optical coupling main body, the plurality of input taper portions provided on an input side of the first MMI type optical coupling main body. Saida is silent regarding a second MMI type optical coupling main body. However, the practice of including a second MMI type optical coupling main body within an optical coupler exists in the art as exemplified by Okayama.
Saida and Okayama are considered to be analogous in the field of optical couplers. Saida discloses a first MMI type optical coupling main body with a plurality of taper portions on one side, and one taper portion on a second side. Okayama discloses an optical coupling main body with a first MMI type optical coupling main body and a second MMI type optical coupling main body connected in this order from a side with a plurality of taper portions to a side with one taper portion, wherein a width of the second MMI type optical coupling main body is narrower than a width of the first MMI type optical coupling main body (Okayama/Fig5/Second MMI type optical coupling main body 14). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to place a second MMI type optical coupling main body with a width narrower than that of the first MMI type optical coupling main body between the first optical coupling main body and the one taper portion since doing so would facilitate advantageous wavelength organization.
With regards to claim 6, Saida and Okayama together disclose the optical coupler according to claim 5, wherein a connection portion of the second MMI type optical coupling main body with the first MMI type optical coupling main body has a width changing portion that becomes wider as it approaches the first MMI type optical coupling main body (Okayama/Fig5/Width changing portion 18).
With regards to claim 8, Saida and Okayama together disclose the optical coupler according to claim 5, further comprising:
a substrate made of a material different from lithium niobate (Saida/Paragraph 31/ “…silicon substrate”…); and
an optical coupling functional layer made of a lithium niobate film formed on the main surface of the substrate, wherein the optical coupler is formed in the optical coupling functional layer (Saida/Paragraph 43/ “…The present invention is applied to… a lithium niobate optical waveguide…”).
Claims 9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saida (JP 2000081534 A) as applied to claim 1 above in view of Krishnamurthi (US 9709734 B2).
With regards to claim 9, Saida discloses a visible light source module comprising the optical coupler according to claim 1, but is silent regarding a plurality of visible laser light sources configured to emit visible lights that are coupled by the optical coupler. However, the practice of coupling a plurality visible light sources to an optical coupler exists in the art as exemplified by Krishnamurthi.
Saida and Krishnamurthi are considered to be analogous in the field of optical couplers. Saida discloses an optical coupler. Krishnamurthi discloses a plurality of visible laser light sources configured to emit visible lights that are coupled by an optical coupler (Krishnamurthi/Fig1/Visible light sources 104; Column 11/Lines 11-17 [“…display…”]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to couple a plurality of visible light sources to the optical coupler of Saida as suggested by Krishnamurthi since doing so would facilitate the controllable input of a variety of different visible lights.
With regards to claim 12, Saida and Krishnamurthi together disclose an optical engine comprising:
the visible light source module according to claim 9; and
a light scanning mirror that reflects the light emitted from the visible light source module by changing an angle to display an image (Krishnamurthi/Fig1/Scanning mirror 150; Column 11/Lines 11-17).
Claims 10-11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saida (JP 2000081534 A) as applied to claim 1 above in view of Krishnamurthi (US 9709734 B2) and Jewart (US 20160357085 A1).
With regards to claim 10, Saida discloses an optical coupler with an optical modulation function, comprising the optical coupler according to claim 1, but is silent regarding
an optical modulator connected to the optical coupler and configured to guide a plurality of visible lights emitted from a plurality of visible laser light sources to the optical coupler.
However, the practice of connecting an optical modulator to an optical coupler exists in the art as exemplified by Krishnamurthi.
Saida and Krishnamurthi are considered to be analogous in the field of optical couplers. Saida discloses an optical coupler configured to receive a plurality of visible lights. Krishnamurthi discloses an optical modulator connected to the optical coupler and configured to guide a plurality of visible lights emitted from a plurality of visible laser light sources to the optical coupler (Krishnamurthi/Fig1/Optical modulator 106; Column 4/Lines 4-8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to couple an optical modulator to the optical coupler of Saida as suggested by Krishnamurthi since doing so would allow for a further degree of control over and manipulation of light entering the optical coupler. Krishnamurthi is silent regarding the optical modulator being an MZ-type optical modulator. However, the practice of selecting an MZ-type modulator for optical modulation exists in the art as exemplified by Jewart.
Saida, Krishnamurthi, and Jewart are considered to be analogous in the field of optical couplers. Saida and Krishnamurthi together disclose an optical modulator connected to an optical coupler. Jewart discloses an MZ-type optical modulator connected to an optical coupler (Jewart/Fig1/MZ-type modulator 15). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select an MZ-type optical modulator as the optical modulator of Saida and Krishnamurthi as suggested by Jewart since doing so would facilitate minimization of optical signal loss, distortion, and feedback.
With regards to claim 11, Saida, Krishnamurthi, and Jewart together disclose a visible light source module comprising:
the optical coupler with a light modulation function according to claim 10; and
a plurality of visible laser light sources configured to emit visible lights that are coupled by the optical coupler with a light modulation function (Krishnamurthi/Fig1/Visible light sources 104; Column 11/Lines 11-17 [“…display…”]).
With regards to claim 13, Saida, Krishnamurthi, and Jewart together disclose an optical engine comprising:
the visible light source module according to claim 11; and
a light scanning mirror that reflects the light emitted from the visible light source module by changing an angle to display an image (Krishnamurthi/Fig1/Scanning mirror 150; Column 11/Lines 11-17).
Conclusion
This prior art, made of record, but not relied upon, is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure since the following references have similar structure and/or use similar structure and/or similar optical elements to what is disclosed and/or claimed in the instant application:
Wang (US 12276832 B2) [Fig7]
Makino (US 20230004028 A1) [Figs5-7]
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Marc E Manheim whose telephone number is (703)756-1873. The examiner can normally be reached 6:30am - 5pm E.T., Monday - Tuesday and Thursday - 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 A 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.
/MARC E MANHEIM/Examiner, Art Unit 2874
/THOMAS A HOLLWEG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights