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.
Double Patenting
Claims 1-24 are provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1-24 of copending Application No. 18/799,797 (reference application). This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented.
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.
Claims 1-4, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 6,259,841 (“BHAGAVATULA”).
Regarding claim 1, BHAGAVATULA teaches an optical device (10), comprising: a waveguide (18); and an optical element (26) disposed adjacent a surface of the waveguide such that the optical element can alter, when the optical device is in operation, an electromagnetic wave guided by the waveguide (FIGs. 1, 2).
Regarding claim 2, BHAGAVATULA teaches that the optical element comprises a dielectric film (col. 4, lines 42-49).
Regarding claim 3, BHAGAVATULA teaches that the dielectric film comprises a patterned photoresist (col. 7, lines 37-45).
Regarding claim 4, BHAGAVATULA teaches that the dielectric film comprises a prism, a convex lens, or a concave lens (FIG. 1).
Regarding claim 16, BHAGAVATULA teaches that the optical element is disposed out-of- plane relative to a plane in which a surface of the waveguide is disposed (FIGs. 1, 2).
Regarding claim 17, BHAGAVATULA teaches a method of operating an optical device (10), the optical device comprising a waveguide (18), the method comprising: generating a guided electromagnetic wave (FIG. 1) by: generating a converging laser beam; and coupling the converging laser beam to the waveguide by steering the converging laser beam towards an edge of the waveguide and with a beam center trajectory approximately parallel to a surface of the waveguide (FIG. 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BHAGAVATULA.
BHAGAVATULA teaches the limitations of the base claim 17. The additional limitations appear to involve mere optimization of the numerical aperture, width, and wavelength of the beam. It has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation."
In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the parameters of the beam, as set forth in the instant claims.
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BHAGAVATULA in view of US 2002/0085785 (“KISHIMOTO”).
Regarding claims 5 and 6, BHAGAVATULA teaches the limitations of the base claim 1. BHAGAVATULA does not teach that the optical element comprises a gold film. KISHIMOTO teaches an optical element comprising a gold film (par. [0043]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to modify the optical element of BHAGAVATULA with the gold film of KISHIMOTO. The motivation would have been to miniaturize the optical film (par. [0043]).
Regarding claim 7, BHAGAVATULA teaches that the optical element film comprises a slit or a grating (FIGs. 7B-D).
Claims 8-11, 14, 15, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BHAGAVATULA in view of US 5,351,262 (“POGUNTKE”).
Regarding claims 8 and 11, BHAGAVATULA teaches the limitations of the base claim 1. BHAGAVATULA does not teach that the waveguide comprises a thin film material comprising a van der Waals material. POGUNTKE teaches a waveguide comprising a thin film material comprising a van der Waals material (col. 7, lines 43-56). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to modify the waveguide of BHAGAVATULA with the thin film material comprising a van der Waals material of POGUNTKE. The motivation would have been to assist in the bonding of active elements (col. 7, lines 43-56).
Regarding claims 9 and 10, BHAGAVATULA teaches that the at least one monolayer comprises between one and three monolayers (20, 22, 24).
Regarding claim 14, BHAGAVATULA teaches that the optical element comprises a rectangular region of the waveguide lacking the thin film material (FIG. 2).
Regarding claim 15, BHAGAVATULA teaches that the rectangular region is arranged having one corner of the rectangular region disposed in a path of the electromagnetic wave guided by the waveguide (FIG. 1).
Regarding claim 21, BHAGAVATULA teaches that steering the converging laser beam towards the edge of the waveguide comprises steering the converging laser beam towards an edge of a thin film material (FIG. 1).
Regarding claim 22, BHAGAVATULA teaches that steering the converging laser beam towards the edge of a thin film material comprises steering the converging laser beam towards an edge of a thin film material comprising at least one monolayer (20, 22, 24).
Regarding claim 23, BHAGAVATULA teaches the limitations of the base claim 21. BHAGAVATULA does not teach that steering the converging laser beam towards the edge of the waveguide comprises steering the converging laser beam towards an edge of a thin film material comprising a van der Waals material. POGUNTKE teaches a waveguide comprising a thin film material comprising a van der Waals material (col. 7, lines 43-56). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to modify the waveguide of BHAGAVATULA with the thin film material comprising a van der Waals material of POGUNTKE. The motivation would have been to assist in the bonding of active elements (col. 7, lines 43-56).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12, 13, and 24 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the provisional double patenting rejection set forth in this Office action and to include 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 prior art of record, whether taken individually or in combination, when considered in light of the claimed subject matter as interpreted in light of the Specification as originally filed, fails to disclose or render obvious that the thin film material comprises a transition metal dichalcogenide.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JERRY M BLEVINS whose telephone number is (571)272-8581. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - 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 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.
/JERRY M BLEVINS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights