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 .
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.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 2: “optical index” should be “refractive index”.
Regarding claim 3: comma should be deleted in “stacked, in front of each other”.
Regarding claim 8: comma should be deleted in “by the first waveguide, at the input of the optical coupler” and also in “by the second waveguide, at the output of the optical coupler”.
Regarding claims 1-13: Appropriate articles are missing before the first word of each claim. For example, in claim 1, “Switch” should be “A switch” and in claims 2-9, “Switch” should be “The switch”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 3-4, 8, and 11-13 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.
Regarding claims 3 and 4: It is unclear what structure the claimed “pattern” corresponds to. A pattern is an abstract concept that might refer to structural features of the respective waveguide cores or might refer to something else such as properties of the light propagating through the cores. Therefore, it is unclear what is required by the claim limitation “wherein the central regions of the first and second waveguides are stacked, in front of each other and have a same pattern vertically in line with the region made of said phase-change material” in claim 3. Similarly, it is unclear what is required by the claim limitation “wherein the central regions of the first and second waveguides do not have a same pattern out of line with the region made of said phase-change material” in claim 4.
Regarding claim 8: The limitation “wherein the laser signal is confined and guided mainly by the first waveguide, at the input of the optical coupler, and mainly by the second waveguide, at the output of the output coupler” is unclear. Does it mean that a greater proportion of laser signal light is guided in the first waveguide compared to the second waveguide at the input of the optical coupler and a greater proportion of laser signal light is guided in the second waveguide compared to the first waveguide at the output of the optical coupler? Does it mean that a majority of the laser signal is guided by the first waveguide at the input of the optical coupler and a majority of the laser signal is guided by the second waveguide at the output of the optical coupler, the majority being evaluated with respect to the total intensity of signal light output by the laser? What about the light that is output by the coupler to the phase change material? Furthermore, what structures correspond to the input and output of the coupler? Since the coupler is understood to output light along a length of the coupler, the output of the coupler does not seem to correspond to a clear location.
Regarding claims 11-13: Claim 11 is directed to “Transmitarray or reflectarray comprising:”. The preamble of claim 11 itself is unclear because it could be interpreted as requiring either: a transmitarray, on its own with no additional elements required, or a reflectarray comprising all of the claimed elements. Additionally, claims 12 and 13 both recite “the array” which lacks proper antecedent basis but apparently refers back to either the transmitarray or the reflectarray. For the purpose of examination, claim 11 has been interpreted as being directed to an array, wherein the array is a transmitarray or reflectarray, comprising all of the claimed elements.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kemp (US 2021/0242397; hereinafter Kemp).
Regarding claim 1: Kemp disclosesSwitch (Figs. 1 and 18) based on a phase-change material comprising: a region made of said phase-change material (Fig. 1, region 130; corresponding structure in Fig. 18; see paragraphs 0108-0113) coupling first and second conduction electrodes of the switch (Fig. 1, first electrode 110 and second electrode 120; see paragraphs 0108-0113); and an optical coupler (Fig. 18, waveguide 1800) of a laser signal for activating the switch (see paragraph 0078), located in front of a surface of the region made of said phase-change material (see Fig. 18, surface of phase change material in contact with the input waveguide 1800).
Kemp further discloses multiple waveguides and that other pathways and architectures can be utilized (see paragraph 0167). Multilayer waveguide structures including two stacked waveguides is well-known in the art, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have been well aware of the advantages of alternative architectures utilizing 3D arrangements that allow for higher density of optical pathways. To provide multiple waveguides such that the optical coupler comprises first and second waveguides stacked in front of said surface, the second waveguide being interposed between the first waveguide and the region made of said phase-change material, simply requires that two waveguides are present on any side of the region made of said phase-change material, with one waveguide having a portion arranged between a portion of the other waveguide and the region. Many conventional waveguide architectures meet this threshold, and therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the Kemp device such that the optical coupler comprises first and second waveguides stacked in front of said surface, the second waveguide being interposed between the first waveguide and the region made of said phase-change material, following the suggestion of Kemp to provide one or more waveguides to irradiate the phase change material.
Claims 2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kemp (US 2021/0242397; hereinafter Kemp), as evidenced by Lee (US Patent No. 7,005,669; hereinafter Lee).
a. Regarding claim 2: Modified Kemp teaches the switch according to claim 1. As evidenced by Lee (see col. 53, lines 1-17), waveguides conventionally comprise a central region made of a first material surrounded by a peripheral region made of a second material having an optical index lower than that of the first material (see section titled Total internal reflection). This is the general operating principle of optical waveguides. In order to guide light in the waveguides, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to form the Kemp device using materials such that the first and second waveguides each comprise a central region made of a first material surrounded by a peripheral region made of a second material having an optical index lower than that of the first material based on common knowledge in the art.
Regarding claim 5: Modified Kemp teaches the switch according to claim 2, as applied above. Regarding the limitation “the central region of the first waveguide has a geometry and dimensions substantially identical to those of the central region of the second waveguide”: The claim does not presently require “the central region” of the first/second waveguide to correspond to the entire core of the first/second waveguide. A region of arbitrary size containing the first material of claim 2 can be called a “central region”. Therefore, by suitable selection of a “central region” of each of the first and second waveguides, the central region of the first waveguide will have a geometry and dimensions substantially identical to those of the central region of the second waveguide.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kemp (US 2021/0242397; hereinafter Kemp) in view of Lee (US Patent No. 7,005,669; hereinafter Lee).
Modified Kemp teaches the switch according to claim 1, as applied above. Modified Kemp fails to teach that the optical coupler is an adiabatic coupler. However, Lee, also related to optical actuation of switching materials (see col. 52, lines 50-end), teaches an activation waveguide having a vertical taper in the vicinity of the phase change material (see Fig. 23F), provided in order to increase the intensity of the illumination of the phase change material (see col. 53, lines 33-42). Lee further teaches that taper lengths are ideally long enough to be adiabatic in order to preserve the mode structure throughout the taper (see col. 10, lines 22-48). Since it was taught by Lee, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the Kemp device by including tapers in one or more of the waveguides of the optical coupler in order to increase the intensity of illumination of the phase change material, and for the tapers to be adiabatic so that the modes are preserved throughout the taper.
Claims 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kemp (US 2021/0242397; hereinafter Kemp) in view of Schaffner et al. (US 2016/0013549; hereinafter Schaffner).
Regarding claim 9: Modified Kemp teaches the switch according to claim 1, as applied above. Kemp fails to teach that the first and second conduction electrodes form part of an antenna element of a cell of a transmitarray or a reflectarray. However, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, Shaffner taught that optically actuated switches comprising phase change material between electrodes can form the basis of antennas and configured for functions such as transmit or receive arrays (see paragraph 0025). Since it was suggested by Shaffner, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the Kemp switch to form part of an antenna element of a cell of a transmitarray, in order to effectively direct beams with low loss.
Regarding claim 10: Modified Kemp teaches at least one switch according to claim 1, as applied above. Kemp fails to teach that the at least one switch is part of a cell of a transmitarray or of a reflectarray. However, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, Shaffner taught that optically actuated switches comprising phase change material between electrodes can form cells configured for functions such as transmit or receive arrays (see Schaffner paragraph 0025). Since it was suggested by Schaffner, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the Kemp switch to form a cell of a transmitarray or of a reflectarray, in order to effectively direct beams with low loss.
Regarding claim 11: Modified Kemp teachesTransmitarray or reflectarray comprising: a plurality of cells according to claim 10 (as applied above; see Schaffner paragraph 0025 regarding forming a plurality of such cells); one or a plurality of laser sources (see Kemp paragraph 0078); and a circuit for controlling the laser source(s) (a circuit is necessarily present to operate the disclosed laser).
Regarding claim 12: Modified Kemp teaches an array according to claim 11, as applied above. Kemp is silent as to whether each laser source forms part of a same chip as each switch with which it is associated. However, it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893). It also has been held the term “integral” is sufficiently broad to embrace constructions united by such means as fastening and welding. In re Hotte, 177 USPQ 326, 328 (CCPA 1973). Whether the laser source is formed as part of a same chip as a switch with which it is associated or provided as a separate piece and put together with the switch is therefore a matter of obvious design choice. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide each laser source as part of a same chip as each switch with which it is associated in order to better maintain the optical alignment of the laser and the coupler in the modified Kemp device.
Regarding claim 13: Modified Kemp teaches an antenna comprising a transmitarray or a reflectarray according to claim 11, as applied above. Regarding the limitation “at least one source configured to irradiate a surface of the array”, the laser source(s) of the Kemp device are configured to irradiate a surface of the array, and in forming a plurality of cells it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a plurality of laser sources for individual control of each cell, as suggested for example in the embodiment of Kemp Fig. 19. Alternatively, transmitarrays and reflectarrays are designed to include at least one source configured to irradiate a surface of the array, in order to have a beam to direct via transmission or reflection, respectively. In order to operate the transmitarray or reflectarray suggested by Schaffner, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include an additional source configured to irradiate a surface of the array, in addition to the laser source(s) used for controlling the switches, based on common knowledge in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest found prior art, Kemp and Lee, fail to teach or suggest output and input surfaces of each of the first and second waveguides, each having, in a top view, a tapered shape.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kirsten D Endresen whose telephone number is (703)756-1533. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday.
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 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.
/KIRSTEN D. ENDRESEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2874
/TINA WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights