DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the application and claims filed on March 4, 2024. Claims 1-10 are pending, with claim 1 as the sole independent.
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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The prior art documents submitted by Applicant in the Information Disclosure Statements filed on July 30, 2025 and March 4, 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 features of dependent claim 6 (“wherein the input ports of the waveguides are not present on the same axes in a light propagation direction as the output ports”) must be shown in a Drawing or the 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 1-10 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.
Regarding independent claim 1, the terms “comprising waveguides”, “the corresponding waveguides”, “input ports of the waveguides”, “at least one of the waveguides”, and “output ports of the waveguides” are all related to similar features (“one or more waveguides”), but these features are not clearly identified with exact antecedent basis in the claim body. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these variations of the base limitation (“comprising waveguides”) in the claim. For example, there could be “one or more” waveguides for this initial term, and then it is not immediately clear if all of the waveguide, or merely “at least one” of these waveguides, is then later referred. The term “each” or “every” waveguide could be used, or the identifier a “plurality” of waveguides may be considered. Notably, if three waveguides are implied (for RGB inputs), then it is not clear if all three waveguides are later referred by “the waveguides”, or if merely “at least two” waveguides could be the scope. Therefore, the features for the many “waveguides” as recited in claim 1 are vague / indefinite under the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Additionally regarding independent claim 1, the terms “located close to” and “improper wavelengths” in the claim body are relative terms which render the claim indefinite. The term “close to” and “improper” 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. The exact scope (metes-and-bounds) of “close to” for a location, or what is meant by “improper”, are not outlined by claim 1. Even though some dependent claims recite output port distances (see dependent claim 5), it is not clear if this is narrower that “close to”, or if merely an example range. Therefore, the feature “located close to” if not clear and is vague / indefinite under the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 112(b). As a result, the combination of these two paragraphs ((7) and (8)) form the overall indefiniteness of independent claim 1. Claims 2-10 are also rejected at least as being in dependent form.
Regarding further features of dependent claims 2-6, the same “waveguides” terms as in claim 1, and section (7) above, lacks proper antecedent basis. The terms “the respective waveguides” (claim 2) and “the waveguides” (claims 3-6) recite features that are not immediately clear which waveguides (if all or some) are being referred. Therefore, claims 2-6 are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for being indefinite.
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, 3-5, and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Narusawa et al. WO 2019/082347 A1.
Narusawa et al. WO 2019/082347 A1 teaches (ABS; Figs. 1a, 3; corresponding text; Claims) an optical waveguide device 10/12 (see Fig. 1a) comprising waveguides 14a / 14b / 14e that respectively receive a plurality of light beams (from 22a / 22b / 22c) of different wavelengths (Title: “Multi-wavelength”; featured “each of a plurality of light beams having different wavelengths”), the optical waveguide device allowing the respective light beams to be input to and propagate through the corresponding waveguide(s) (22a -> 14a; 22b -> 14b; 22c -> 14e) and then to be output (output at left in Fig. 1a, for example), wherein input ports of the waveguides are spaced apart from each other so as to not receive light beams of improper wavelengths (Fig. 1a appear if the waveguides merely receive light as intended and not “improperly”, in a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of this vague term), at least one of the waveguides is curved (see curving features in Fig. 1a for at least 14a and 14e – curve toward central waveguide 14b), and output ports of the waveguides are located “close to” each other (again, BRI of “close to”; the waveguides are “closer” at the left of Fig. 1a than at the right of Fig. 1a), which clearly, fully meets Applicant’s claimed structural limitations for sole pending independent claim 1.
Regarding dependent claim 3, the waveguide core and cladding are given as an example of about 6 um, which is in the claimed range of width/height of the waveguide.
Regarding claim 4, the input waveguide sides are at least 20 um or more from each other, in La, as the separation of the lasers is at least 20 um based on the scale, as the feature is about 100 times the waveguide width (Fig. 1a description).
Regarding claim 5, the separation distance at the output end of the fiber waveguides is 3 – 5 um times (1 – 1.5 factor). Therefore, the range of the distance is 3 um to 7.5 um, which is within the defined range of 5 to 10 um as an example. Thus the structure and separation distance is met by at least one example in Narusawa.
Regarding claim 7, a red / green / blue emission is given as an example in Fig. 1a / 1b (“laser light source emits, for example, visible such as RGB three primary colors”). Regarding claims 8-10, see the sample lasers 22a / 22b / 22c as diode lasers (implied, Fig. 1a) that are capable of emitting light in the visible ranges, such as RGB (Red/Blue/Green; note claim 7 above).
Claims 1 and 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hayashi et al. JP 2019 – 035876 A.
Hayashi et al. JP 2019 – 035876 A teaches (ABS; Figs. 2-4; corresponding text; Claims) an optical waveguide device 100 / 200 / 300 (see Figs. 2-4 for examples) comprising waveguides 102 / 101 / 103 (Fig. 2; note defined by different WG terms in Figs. 3-4) that respectively receive a plurality of light beams (from R / G / B) of different wavelengths (red; green; blue are different visible wavelengths), the optical waveguide device allowing the respective light beams to be input to and propagate through the corresponding waveguide(s) (G -> 102; R -> 101; B -> 103) and then to be output (output at right in Figs. 2-4, for example), wherein input ports of the waveguides are spaced apart from each other so as to not receive light beams of improper wavelengths (Fig. 2-4 receive only the proper R / G / B to the waveguide), at least one of the waveguides is curved (see curving features in Figs. 2-4 for at least 102 / 103 – curve toward central waveguide 101), and output ports of the waveguides are located “close to” each other (again, BRI of “close to”; the waveguides are “closer” at the right of Figs. 2-4 than at the left of the same Fig.; paras [0012] – [0018]), which clearly, fully meets Applicant’s claimed structural limitations for sole pending independent claim 1.
Regarding dependent claim 6, see the configurations in Figs. 3 and 4, in which the waveguides are on different axes on the PLC chip (in Fig. 3, R on one axis, while G and B are on another; in Fig. 4, all three RGB are on different axis than the outputs).
Regarding claim 7, a red / green / blue emission is given as an example in Figs. 2-4 (RGB are three primary colors for emission). Regarding claims 8-10, see the sample lasers RGB as diode lasers (implied, Figs. 2-4) that are capable of emitting light in the visible ranges, such as RGB (Red/Blue/Green; note claim 7 above).
Claims 1, 2, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mitsuki et al. JP 2006 – 330436 A.
Mitsuki et al. JP 2006 – 330436 A teaches (ABS; Figs. 1, 2; corresponding text, see paragraphs [0021] – [0030], [0032], [0037]; Claims) an optical waveguide device 12 (see Figs. 1-2 for examples) comprising waveguides 22a – 22d (Figs. 1-2 show separated waveguides, at least 4) that respectively receive a plurality of light beams of different wavelengths ([0037]), the optical waveguide device allowing the respective light beams to be input to and propagate through the corresponding waveguide(s) (at incidence end near 11 / 15) and then to be output (at output at right near 16 and 25b / 25d in Figs. 1-2, for example), wherein input ports of the waveguides are spaced apart from each other so as to not receive light beams of improper wavelengths (Figs. 1-2 receive only the proper respective diode signal to the waveguide), at least one of the waveguides is curved (see curving features in Figs. 1-2 for at least 22a and 22d – curve toward the more centrally located waveguides), and output ports of the waveguides are located “close to” each other (again, BRI of “close to”; the waveguides are “closer” at the right of Figs. 1-2 than at the left of the same Fig.; paras [0021] – [0030]), which clearly, fully meets Applicant’s claimed structural limitations for sole pending independent claim 1.
Regarding dependent claim 2, the signal can be multi-mode in a particular configuration and teaching relationship (para [0034]a ), which meets the structure.
Regarding claims 8-9, see the sample lasers as diode lasers ([0023]) that are capable of emitting light as claimed for a “light source module” (see Figs. 1-2).
Independent Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) at least further as being anticipated by Andou et al. WO 2017/090333 A1 (see Figs. 1-7 and paras [0021] – [0041]); Grief et al. US 2020/0310120 A1 (which has matured into U.S. Patent No. 11,493,760 B2 (see ABS; Figs. 3B and paragraphs [0039] – [0042]); and Huebel et al. WO 2020/078735 A1 (see Figs. 1, 2, 7, 8; corresponding text).
Each of Andou WO ‘333, Grief US ‘120, and Huebel WO ‘735 clearly and fully anticipate all claimed structural features of at least independent claim 1, in that an optical waveguide device (13 in Andou; 308 in Grief; 110 in Huebel) comprising waveguides (optical) that respectively receive a plurality of light beams of different wavelengths (from inputs), the optical waveguide device allowing the respective light beams to be input to and propagate through the corresponding waveguide(s) (at incidence end) and then to be output (at output end), wherein input ports of the waveguides are spaced apart from each other so as to not receive light beams of improper wavelengths, at least one of the waveguides is curved (see curving features in Andou WO ‘333, Grief US ‘120, and Huebel WO ‘735 – curve toward the more centrally located waveguides), and output ports of the waveguides are located “close to” each other (again, BRI of “close to”; the waveguides are “closer” at the output), which clearly, fully meets Applicant’s claimed structural limitations for sole pending independent claim 1.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takahara et al. JP 2006 – 330436 A.
Mitsuki et al. JP 11 – 264912 teaches (ABS; Fig. 1, 2; corresponding text, see paragraphs [0009] – [0013], [0019], [0020]; Claims) an optical waveguide device (see the optical wiring structure) comprising waveguides 13 that respectively are capable to receive light beams of different wavelengths (capable of receiving, note structure of the waveguide itself, features of the preamble not necessarily read into the claim body unless recited again), the optical waveguide device allowing the respective light beams to be input to and propagate through the corresponding waveguide(s) (at incidence end) and then to be output (at output end), wherein input ports of the waveguides are spaced apart from each other so as to not receive light beams of improper wavelengths (Fig. 1 receives only the proper respective optical signal to the waveguide), at least one of the waveguides is curved (see curving features in Fig. 1 for at least some of the WGs 13) output ports of the waveguides are located “close to” each other (again, BRI of “close to”; the waveguides are “close” to each other in Fig. 1 at either/both ends, there is no claim of relation to the input vs. output in claim 1), which clearly, fully meets Applicant’s claimed structural limitations for sole pending independent claim 1.
Regarding dependent claim 2, Takahara JP ‘912 teaches that multi-mode signals can propagate in the curved waveguides (paras [0019], [0020]).
Independent Claim 1 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) at least further as being anticipated by Sakai JP 2008 145734 A (ABS; Fig. 1; paras [0030] – [0032]); Okayama US 2010/0178005 A1 (Figs. 1A and 4A; paras [0048], [0049]; Claim 1); and Maruyama et al. U.S. Patent No. 6,587,629 B1 (Figs. 2-3; corresponding text, see columns 4, 5, and 8).
Each of Sakai JP ‘734, Okayama US ‘005, and Maruyama US ‘629 clearly and fully anticipate all claimed structural features of at least independent claim 1, in that an optical waveguide device (see Fig. 1 in Sakai; Figs. 1A and 4A in Okayama; Figs. 2-3 in Maruyama) comprising waveguides (optical) that respectively receive a plurality of light beams of different wavelengths (from inputs), the optical waveguide device allowing the respective light beams to be input to and propagate through the corresponding waveguide(s) (at incidence end) and then to be output (at output end), wherein input ports of the waveguides are spaced apart from each other so as to not receive light beams of improper wavelengths, at least one of the waveguides is curved (see curving features in Sakai JP ‘734, Okayama US ‘005, and Maruyama US ‘629 – curve toward a more central location on the optical device / substrate), and output ports of the waveguides are located “close to” each other (again, BRI of “close to”; the waveguides are “closer” at the output), which clearly, fully meets Applicant’s claimed structural limitations for sole pending independent claim 1.
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 A-D, which pertain to the state of the art of optical waveguide devices that have multiple optical waveguide cores that employ curving functions along the length of an input (with a signal) to an output (the output waveguides being “close to” each other). See Gupta Figs. 2, 3a, 4, and 9; Sakamoto feature 310; Arao Figs. 1 and 2 the PLC feature; and Dho Fig. 7 feature 710.
Based on the plethora of prior art references that clearly and fully anticipate all structural features of at least independent claim 1 (under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)), Applicant’s cooperation is respectfully requested to amend substantial structural and/or functional features into this claim. Also, indefiniteness of claims 1-6 must be addressed.
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 January 27, 2026