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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The prior art document(s) submitted by applicant in the Information Disclosure Statement filed on 06/10/2024 have all been considered and made of record (Note the attached copy of form PTO-892).
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1 and 8: “wherein the optical functional layer includes, ” should end in a colon (:) instead of a comma (,).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-7 and 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Doi et al. in US 20030219188 A1 (hereinafter "Doi").
Regarding claim 1, Doi discloses an electro-optical element comprising:
a substrate (substrate 301); and
an optical functional layer formed on a main surface of the substrate (see Fig. 14),
wherein the optical functional layer includes:
an optical-input-side optical waveguide configured to guide light emitted from a light source (waveguide for “input light” to the right of 330 in Fig. 14 is interpreted as the optical-input-side waveguide; a light source is necessarily present),
an optical branch part configured to branch the optical-input-side optical waveguide into two optical-modulation optical waveguides (couplers 330 is configured to branch the optical-input-side optical waveguide into two optical-modulation optical waveguides 310 and is thus interpreted as an optical branch part; see Fig. 14),
a Mach-Zehnder optical modulation part configured to modulate light guided through the two optical-modulation optical waveguides (optical modulator 300; see Para. 178 and 184),
an optical coupling and branch part (the combination of dB couplers 340 and 350 is interpreted as an optical coupling and branch part) configured to branch the two optical-modulation optical waveguides configured to guide modulated light modulated by the Mach-Zehnder optical modulation part (310; see Para. 184) into one monitoring optical waveguide (waveguide connected to 370; see Para. 187) and a plurality of optical-output-side optical waveguides (waveguides 320 connected to 360), and
an optical coupling part configured to make the plurality of optical-output-side optical waveguides as one optical-output optical waveguide (coupler 360; see Fig. 14).
Regarding claim 2, Doi discloses the electro-optical element according to claim 1 as discussed above,
wherein all of the optical-input-side optical waveguide, the optical-modulation optical waveguides, the monitoring optical waveguide, the optical-output-side optical waveguides, and the optical-output optical waveguide are made of lithium niobate (see Para. 250).
Regarding claim 3, Doi discloses the electro-optical element according to claim 1 as discussed above, wherein all of the optical branch part, the optical coupling and branch part, and the optical coupling part are multimode interferometers (see Annotated Fig. 14; Para. 194, 199, 203, and 216-218 discuss waveguides interfering with other at the coupling elements which have been interpreted as the listed parts).
PNG
media_image1.png
463
703
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Doi discloses the electro-optical element according to claim 1 as discussed above,
wherein a number of the plurality of optical-output-side optical waveguides is two (see Fig. 14).
Regarding claim 5, Doi discloses the electro-optical element according to claim 1 as discussed above, further comprising:
a photodetector configured to detect a light intensity fluctuation of monitoring light guided through the monitoring optical waveguide (monitor diode 315 which receives light from waveguide connected to 370; see Para. 189); and
a control unit configured to correct an intensity of light guided through the optical-modulation optical waveguides according to a detection result of the monitoring light in the photodetector (DC control section 316; see Fig. 14 and Para. 190).
Regarding claim 6, Doi discloses the electro-optical element according to claim 1 as discussed above,
wherein the optical functional layer further includes a light input port through which the light emitted from the light source is input to the optical-input-side optical waveguide (the portion of waveguide near 330 facing the input light is interpreted as the light input port), and
the optical-input-side optical waveguide guides the light input from the light input port (see Fig. 14).
Regarding claim 7, Doi discloses the electro-optical element according to claim 5 as discussed above,
wherein the optical functional layer further includes bias electrodes (303 comprising 312 and 313 are interpreted as bias electrodes) provided on the two optical-modulation optical waveguides disposed between the optical branch part and the Mach-Zehnder optical modulation part, respectively (see Fig. 14 and see Para. 181), and
a DC voltage that is applied from the bias electrodes to the optical-modulation optical waveguides is controlled by the control unit (see Para. 190 and 212; see Fig. 14).
Regarding claim 9, Doi discloses a light source module comprising:
a light source (necessarily present); and
the electro-optical element according to claim 1 as discussed above.
Regarding claim 10, Doi discloses a light source module comprising:
a light source (the light emitting from monitor 1 connected to 370 is interpreted as a light source); and
the electro-optical element according to claim 5 as discussed above,
wherein a current that is supplied to the light source is controlled by the control unit (the interpreted light source is received by PD 315 which provides current to DOUBLE-CHECK control section 316 which controls biasing electrode section 303 which will affect the light output by the interpreted light source).
Regarding claim 11, Doi discloses an optical engine in which the light source module according to claim 9 as discussed above is mounted (any device using Doi as disclosed in claim 9 above is interpreted as an optical engine and the light source module must necessarily be mounted in said optical engine).
Regarding claim 12, Doi discloses an interpreted portion of XR glasses in which the light source module according to claim 9 as discussed above is mounted (emphasis added, no structure of the glasses apart from the light source module itself has been claimed ; see Fig. 14).
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.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doi et al. in US 20030219188 A1 (hereinafter "Doi").
Regarding claim 8, Doi discloses the electro-optical element according to claim 1,
wherein the optical functional layer includes:
the optical modulation part including:
the optical-input-side optical waveguide (waveguide for “input light” to the right of 330 in Fig. 14),
the optical branch part (couplers 330),
the Mach-Zehnder optical modulation part (optical modulator 300),
the optical coupling and branch part (the combination of dB couplers 340 and 350), and
the optical coupling part (coupler 360).
Doi does not teach that there are three optical modulation parts.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a "web" which lies in the joint, and a plurality of "ribs" projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.).
Doi also does not teach the optical-input-side optical waveguides of the respective optical modulation parts guide light having different wavelengths.
However, the Examiner notes that the limitation “the optical-input-side optical waveguides of the respective optical modulation parts guide light having different wavelengths” is an intended use type limitation. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARBY M THOMASON whose telephone number is (703)756-5817. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 8am-5pm.
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.
/DARBY M. THOMASON/Examiner, Art Unit 2874
/UYEN CHAU N LE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights