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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 8/15/24 and 1/8/25 were filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim 16 is 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.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the continuous and differentiable function" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, claim 16 is considered dependent on claim 13.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 11-13, 16, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hsu et al. (US 2023/0064550 A1).
Re. Claim 1, Hsu et al. discloses an electronic device ([0001]) comprising:
a waveguide 124 configured to propagate light (Fig. 1; [0018] and [0023]); and
an optical coupler 140 configured to redirect and replicate the light (Fig. 1; [0023]), wherein the optical coupler includes
a substrate on the waveguide (Fig. 4; [0038]), and
a surface relief grating (SRG) in the substrate, wherein the SRG has ridges with a pitch that varies continuously as a function of position along an axis orthogonal to the ridges (Fig. 4; [0039]).
Re. Claim 11, Hsu et al. discloses an input coupler 136 configured to couple the light into the waveguide 124; and an output coupler (e.g. waveguide end face) configured to couple the light out of the waveguide, the optical coupler 140 comprising a cross-coupler configured to redirect the light from the input coupler towards the output coupler (Fig. 1; [0018]).
Re. Claim 12, Hsu et al. discloses an electronic device comprising:
a waveguide 124 configured to propagate light (Fig. 1; [0018] and [0023]); and
an optical coupler 140 configured to redirect and replicate the light (Fig. 1; [0023]), wherein the optical coupler includes
a substrate on the waveguide (Fig. 4; [0038]), and
a diffractive grating in the substrate, wherein the diffractive grating is configured to impart a phase to the light upon diffracting the light and wherein the phase varies continuously as a function of position along an axis (Fig. 4; [0039]).
Re. Claims 13 and 16, Hsu et al. discloses the function is a continuous and differentiable function, such as a linear function ([0039]).
Re. Claim 19, Hsu et al. discloses the diffractive grating comprises a surface relief grating (Fig. 4; [0039]).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee (US 10,557,994 B1).
Re. Claim 20, Lee discloses an electronic device comprising:
a waveguide 110 configured to propagate light (Fig. 1A; col. 3 lines 54-60); and
an optical coupler 321 configured to redirect and replicate the light (Fig. 3; col. 5 lines 7-9), wherein the optical coupler includes
a substrate on the waveguide (e.g., best seen in optical coupler 521 coupled to plano-parallel waveguide 510; Fog. 5; col. 5 lines 60-67 and col. 6 lines 1-5), and
a surface relief grating (SRG) in the substrate, wherein the SRG has ridges and troughs 302 that follow sinusoidal paths (Fig. 3; col. 5 lines 9-16 and 36-38).
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.
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.
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(s) 2-3, 6-7, and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu et al. (US 2023/0064550 A1).
Hsu et al. discloses the electronic device as discussed above, wherein the continuous variation in pitch may be either fixed or variable ([0039]).
The claimed functional pitch variations are well known in the art, and include embodiments where the continuous pitch variation is fixed (e.g. periodic and sinusoidal functions) or variable (e.g., parabolic function), and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to the claimed invention for the purpose of achieving a desired diffraction pattern. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). It is noted that a decreasing parabolic variation along the path immediately followed by an increasing parabolic variation along the path inherently results in a minimum pitch halfway along the axis.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5, 8-10, and 17-18 are 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:
Re. Claims 4-5, the prior art does not disclose or reasonably suggest an electronic device as required by the claim, specifically wherein the ridges follow periodic paths.
Re. Claim 8, the prior art does not disclose or reasonably suggest an electronic device as required by the claim, specifically wherein the SRG has a length along the axis and the SRG has a minimum pitch that is offset from halfway along the length.
Re. Claim 9, the prior art does not disclose or reasonably suggest an electronic device as required by the claim, specifically comprising: an additional SRG in the substrate and overlapping the SRG, wherein the additional SRG has additional ridges oriented non-parallel with respect to the ridges in the SRG, and wherein the additional ridges have an additional pitch that varies continuously as a function of position along an additional axis orthogonal to the additional ridges.
Re. Claim 10, the prior art does not disclose or reasonably suggest an electronic device as required by the claim, specifically wherein the waveguide has a first lateral surface, a second lateral surface opposite the first lateral surface, and the substrate is layered on the first lateral surface, the electronic device further comprising: an additional substrate layered on the second lateral surface; and an additional SRG in the additional substrate and overlapping the SRG, wherein the additional SRG has additional ridges oriented non-parallel with respect to the ridges in the SRG, and wherein the additional ridges have an additional pitch that varies continuously as a function of position along an additional axis orthogonal to the additional ridges.
Re. Claim 17, the prior art does not disclose or reasonably suggest an electronic device as required by the claim, specifically wherein the phase varies continuously as a function of position along an additional axis orthogonal to the axis.
Re. Claim 18, the prior art does not disclose or reasonably suggest an electronic device as required by the claim, specifically wherein the phase varies parabolically along the axis and varies parabolically along the additional axis.
The most applicable prior art, Hsu et al. (US 2023/0064550 A1), fails to disclose or reasonably suggest the claimed invention as required by claims 4-5 and 8-10, specifically those portions highlighted above in combination with the remaining limitations of the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See the attached PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to R. PEACE whose telephone number is (571)272-8580. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 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.
/RHONDA S PEACE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874 10/5/26
Prosecution Insights