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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments filed 05/28/2026 are acknowledged and have been entered. Claims 1-37 are pending.
Regarding the objection to the drawings under 37 CFR 1.83(a), the amendments to Fig. 1 and paragraphs [0063]-[0065] of the specification are sufficient enough to overcome the drawing objections. The objection under 37 CFR 1.83(a) is hereby withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 6 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Regarding the applicant’s argument with respect to new claim 36 (page 15 of Remarks, filed 05/28/2026), the examiner respectfully disagrees that Englund does not disclose or suggest a waveguide with a constant width. While Englund does disclose a tapered waveguide, it does not limit the shape of the waveguide to be tapered (paragraph [0006] discloses only some embodiments comprise a tapered multimode fiber). The embodiment shown in Fig. 2A is not described or depicted as being tapered. In general, Englund is concerned with a multimode interferometric waveguide with a dispersive region (paragraph [0005]). In some embodiments, the dispersive region is accomplished by tapering the waveguide (as described in paragraphs [0035]-[0042] and Fig. 1A). However, in other embodiments, the dispersive region comprises nanoparticles and therefore does not require a tapered structure (as described in paragraphs [0044]-[0045] and Fig. 2A).
Regarding the applicant’s argument with respect to new claim 37 (page 15-16 of Remarks, filed 05/28/2026), the examiner agrees. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Kita ("High-performance and scalable on-chip digital Fourier transform spectroscopy". Nat Commun 9, 4405 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-06773-2).
Claim Interpretation
For the reasons given in the Office action mailed 05/28/2026, the following limitations remain interpreted under 35 USC 112(f):
Optical elements in claims 4 and 26.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4-13, and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Englund (US20150168217A1) in view of Santori (US20140362374A1).
Regarding claim 1, Englund teaches a multimode-interferometric spectrometer (paragraph [0005] discloses a spectrometer), comprising:
a multi-mode interference waveguide (MMI-WG) (260, Fig. 2A, paragraph [0005] further discloses the spectrometer comprising a multimode waveguide) comprising:
an input end (paragraph [0056] discusses the input end of the MMI waveguide, however it is the examiner's position that any waveguide would have an input end);
a lateral surface (the examiner is interpreting lateral to be the side parallel to the longest dimension of the waveguide; Fig. 2A depict this lateral surface); and
an input port (it is the position of the examiner that all waveguides have some sort of an input port) disposed on the input end of the MMI-WG and configured to guide input light to enter the MMI-WG, such that light in the MMI-WG propagates in a direction away from the input end (Fig. 2A depicts the light, shown as an arrow in the waveguide portion, directed away from an input end);
a sensor (270, Fig. 2A) configured to detect scattered light that scattered through the lateral surface of the MMI-WG (see signals represented by arrows coming from the lateral region 262 towards sensor 270; paragraph [0045]), and to generate data based on the detected scattered light, wherein the data indicates an intensity of the scattered light (Fig. 1C depicts intensity data gathered by the sensor); and
one or more processors (272, Fig. 2A) configured to determine, based on the intensity of the scattered light indicated by the data generated by the sensor, one or more wavelengths of the input light (paragraph[0045] discloses the processor determining the spectrum of the light from an interference pattern of the scattered light).
Englund does teach detecting scattered light in at least one location (the dispersive region corresponding to 264 in Fig. 2A), but fails to teach detecting scattered light at one or more predefined locations on the lateral surface, wherein the one or more predefined locations are selected based on known spatial interference patterns formed by one or more predetermined wavelengths of light.
However, in the same field of endeavor of multimode waveguides used in spectrometers, Santori discloses a waveguide (114, Fig. 1) and a sensor (129, Fig. 1) which is configured to detect scattered light a plurality of predefined locations through the lateral surface (see signals 126 propagating from the waveguide 114 to the sensor 129, Fig. 1), where the predefined locations (‘scattering objects’ - 124, Fig. 1) are chosen based on known spatial interference patterns (paragraph [0027] discloses the configuration of the scattering objects is chosen to correspond to an intensity of the spatial beating pattern in the light traveling through the waveguide; paragraph [0037] discloses the beating pattern is present due to the interference; paragraph [0052] also discloses the scattering objects are placed at locations to enhance the contrast of the multimode interference pattern).
The sensor used by Englund is intended to detect an interference pattern from the waveguide (paragraph [0045]). Santori discloses an interference in the waveguide produces a spatial beating pattern that varies relative to a particular position (paragraph [0023]), and further discloses the predefined locations are chosen to contrast the scattering of this spatial beating pattern (paragraph [0052]). Therefore, the light signal will have a better signal-to-noise (SNR) ratio due to the enhanced contrast. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would find it obvious to combine the waveguide taught in Englund with the predefined sensing locations chosen based on known spatial interference patterns taught in Santori in order to achieve an improved SNR ratio of the signal.
Regarding claim 2, Englund as modified by Santori teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1, and further teaches the lateral surface comprises one of a top surface of the MMI-WG and a bottom surface of the MMI-WG (Englund: the waveguide would inherently have a top and bottom on the lateral surface. For example, in Fig. 2A, the top of the lateral surface would be adjacent to label 262, while the bottom would be adjacent to label 264, or vice versa).
Regarding claim 4, Englund as modified by Santori teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1, and further teaches comprising one or more optical elements configured to guide the scattered light to the sensor (Englund: paragraph [0056] discloses an objective which guides the light from the waveguide to the sensor).
Regarding claim 5, Englund as modified by Santori teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1, and further teaches the sensor comprises a two-dimensional sensor configured to detect the scattered light scattered through the lateral surface of the MMI-WG (Englund: paragraph [0049]); and
the data generated by the sensor comprises a two-dimensional image based on the detected scattered light (Englund: paragraph [0049] discloses the use of a 2D sensor, such as "those used in smartphones and digital cameras". The images of these types of sensors is 2D, thus the examiner is interpreting the sensor mentioned generates a 2D image).
Regarding claim 6, Englund as modified by Santori teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1, and further teaches the lateral surface of the MMI-WG comprises at least one modified portion corresponding to the one or more predefined locations that enhances scattering at the predefined location (Santori: paragraph [0027] discloses the configuration of the scattering objects is chosen to correspond to an intensity of the spatial beating pattern in the light traveling through the waveguide; paragraph [0055] discloses scattering objects are placed at an apex of the light pattern).
Santori teaches the placement of scattering objects at the apex of the light pattern can scatter an elevated magnitude of the signal, therefore ensuring the signal is a detectable magnitude (paragraph [0055]). Further, Santori discloses the scattering objects ensure the signals travel in an intended direction, and backscattering is reduced (paragraph [0036]). Thus, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to combine the waveguide taught by Englund as modified by Santori with the scattering objects at predefined location position taught in Santori in order to elevate the magnitude of the signal and ensure the signal is traveling in an intended direction.
Regarding claim 7, Englund as modified by Santori teaches the invention as explained above in claim 6, and further teaches the modified portion comprises one or more of:
an etched portion of the lateral surface (Santori: paragraph [0025] discloses the scattering objects may be etched into the waveguide).
As discussed above in claim 6, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to combine the waveguide taught by Englund as modified by Santori with the etched scattering objects taught in Santori in order to elevate the magnitude of the signal and ensure the signal is traveling in an intended direction.
Regarding claim 8, Englund as modified by Santori teaches the invention as explained above in claim 6, and further teaches input light of a first wavelength (Englund: multiple wavelengths are used in the device, see Fig. 3A) scatters at the predefined location with an intensity above a predefined threshold (Santori: paragraph [0027] discloses the scattering objects at the predefined locations are configured to scatter an intensity signal according to the pattern present in the light traveling along the waveguide; paragraph [0055] discloses the scattering objects at the apex of the pattern may elevate the magnitude of the signal to above a detectable magnitude. It is the interpretation of the examiner that a detectable magnitude would be a predefined threshold); and
input light of a second wavelength (Englund: multiple wavelengths are used in the device, see Fig. 3A) scatters at the predefined location with an intensity below the predefined threshold (Santori: it would naturally follow that using a second wavelength of light that is different from the first wavelength of light would result in a different pattern present in the light traveling along the waveguide. Therefore, the scattering objects would not be aligned with the apex of the pattern as described in paragraph [0055] and the magnitude of the signal would not be elevated above the detectable magnitude).
Santori discloses that the scattering objects may act as drop filters (paragraph [0014]), therefore enabling a simple and straightforward determination of if a specific wavelength is present or not. Thus, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the spectrometer of Englund as modified by Santori with the predefined threshold taught in Santori in order to determine if a specific wavelength is present in a simple and straightforward manner that will save calculation time.
Regarding claim 9, Englund as modified by Santori teaches the invention as explained above in claim 6, and further teaches the sensor is configured to detect the scattered light after scattering through the modified portion of the lateral surface of the MMI-WG (Santori: paragraph [0028]).
As discussed above in claim 6, the scattering objects elevate the magnitude of the signal and ensure the signal is traveling in an intended direction. Thus, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the device of Englund as modified by Santori with the sensor configuration taught in Santori in order to receive magnified signals.
Regarding claim 10, Englund as modified by Santori teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1, and further teaches determining the one or more wavelengths of the input light comprises determining whether the intensity of the scattered light exceeds a predefined intensity threshold (Santori: paragraph [0027] discloses the scattering objects at the predefined locations are configured to scatter an intensity signal according to the pattern present in the light traveling along the waveguide; paragraph [0055] discloses the scattering objects at the apex of the pattern may elevate the magnitude of the signal to a detectable magnitude. It is the interpretation of the examiner that a detectable magnitude would be a predefined threshold).
As explained above in claim 8, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the spectrometer of Englund as modified by Santori with the predefined threshold taught in Santori in order to determine if a specific wavelength is present in a simple and straightforward manner that will save calculation time.
Regarding claim 11, Englund as modified by Santori teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1, and further teaches the data generated by the sensor comprises a two-dimensional image (Englund: paragraph [0049] discloses the use of a 2D sensor, such as "those used in smartphones and digital cameras". The images of these types of sensors is 2D, thus the examiner is interpreting the sensor mentioned generates a 2D image); and
determining the one or more wavelengths of the input light comprises applying a pattern- recognition operation to image (Englund: paragraph [0010] discloses storing a mapping of interference patterns and using them to determine a wavelength spectrum).
Regarding claim 12, Englund teaches a method, performed at a multimode-interferometric spectrometer (paragraph [0005] discloses a spectrometer and method of using said spectrometer) comprising a sensor (270, Fig. 2A), one or more processors (272, Fig. 2A), and a multi-mode interference waveguide (MMI- WG) (260, Fig. 2A), the method comprising:
detecting, by the sensor, scattered light (paragraph [0045]) that scattered through a lateral surface of the MMI- WG (see signals represented by arrows coming from the lateral region 262 towards sensor 270), wherein the MMI-WG comprises:
an input end (paragraph [0056] discusses the input end of the MMI waveguide);
the lateral surface (the examiner is interpreting lateral to be the side parallel to the longest dimension of the waveguide; Figs. 2A and 2B depict this lateral surface); and
an input port it is the position of the examiner that all waveguides have some sort of an input port)disposed on the input end of the MMI-WG and configured to guide input light to enter the MMI-WG, such that light in the MMI-WG propagates in a direction away from the input end (Fig. 2B depicts the light, shown as an arrow in the waveguide portion, directed away from an input end);
generating, by the sensor, data based on the detected scattered light, wherein the data indicates an intensity of the scattered light (Fig. 1C depicts intensity data gathered by the sensor. The examiner is interpreting this to imply data was generated at some point); and
determining, by the one or more processors, based on the intensity of the scattered light indicated by the data generated by the sensor, one or more wavelengths of the input light (paragraphs [0008], [0010], [0037], [0045], and [0049] discloses the processor determining the spectrum of the light from an interference pattern of the scattered light).
Englund does teach detecting scattered light in at least one location (the dispersive region corresponding to 264 in Fig. 2A), but fails to disclose detecting scattered light at one or more predefined locations on the lateral surface, wherein the one or more predefined locations are selected based on known spatial interference patterns formed by one or more predetermined wavelengths of light.
However, in the same field of endeavor of multimode waveguides used in spectrometers, Santori discloses a waveguide (114, Fig. 1) and a sensor (129, Fig. 1) which is configured to detect scattered light a plurality of locations through the lateral surface (see signals 126 propagating from the waveguide 114 to the sensor 129), where the predefined locations (124, Fig. 1) are chosen based on known spatial interference patterns (paragraph [0027] discloses the configuration of the scattering objects is chosen to correspond to an intensity of the spatial beating pattern in the light traveling through the waveguide; paragraph [0037] discloses the beating pattern is present due to the interference; paragraph [0052] also discloses the scattering objects are placed at locations to enhance the multimode interference pattern).
The sensor used by Englund is intended to detect an interference pattern from the waveguide (paragraph [0045]). Santori discloses an interference in the waveguide produces a spatial beating pattern that varies relative to a particular position (paragraph [0023]), and further discloses the predefined locations are chosen to contrast the scattering of this spatial beating pattern (paragraph [0052]). Therefore, light signal will have a better signal-to-noise (SNR) ratio due to the enhanced contrast. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would find it obvious to combine the waveguide taught in Englund with the predefined sensing locations chosen based on known spatial interference patterns taught in Santori in order to achieve a better SNR ratio of the signal.
Regarding claim 13, Englund teaches a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing instructions (paragraph [0074]) configured to be executed by one or more processors (272, Fig. 2A) of a multimode-interferometric spectrometer comprising a sensor (270, Fig. 2A) and a multi-mode interference waveguide (MMI-WG) (260, Fig. 2A), the instructions configured to cause the spectrometer to:
detect, by the sensor, scattered light (paragraph [0045]) that scattered through a lateral surface of the MMI- WG (see signals represented by arrows coming from the lateral region 262 towards sensor 270), wherein the MMI-WG comprises:
an input end (paragraph [0056] discusses the input end of the MMI waveguide);
the lateral surface (the examiner is interpreting lateral to be the side parallel to the longest dimension of the waveguide; Figs. 2A depicts this lateral surface); and
an input port it is the position of the examiner that all waveguides have some sort of an input port)disposed on the input end of the MMI-WG and configured to guide input light to enter the MMI-WG, such that light in the MMI-WG propagates in a direction away from the input end (Fig. 2A depicts the light, shown as an arrow in the waveguide portion, directed away from an input end);
generate, by the sensor, data based on the detected scattered light, wherein the data indicates an intensity of the scattered light (Fig. 1C depicts intensity data gathered by the sensor. The examiner is interpreting this to imply data was generated at some point); and
determine, by the one or more processors, based on the intensity of the scattered light indicated by the data generated by the sensor, one or more wavelengths of the input light (paragraphs [0008], [0010], [0037], [0045], and [0049] discloses the processor determining the spectrum of the light from an interference pattern of the scattered light).
Englund does teach detecting scattered light in at least one location (the dispersive region corresponding to 264 in Fig. 2A), but fails to disclose detecting scattered light at one or more predefined locations on the lateral surface, wherein the one or more predefined locations are selected based on known spatial interference patterns formed by one or more predetermined wavelengths of light.
However, in the same field of endeavor of multimode waveguides used in spectrometers, Santori discloses a waveguide (114, Fig. 1) and a sensor (129, Fig. 1) which is configured to detect scattered light a plurality of locations through the lateral surface (see signals 126 propagating from the waveguide 114 to the sensor 129), where the predefined locations (124, Fig. 1) are chosen based on known spatial interference patterns (paragraph [0027] discloses the configuration of the scattering objects is chosen to correspond to an intensity of the spatial beating pattern in the light traveling through the waveguide; paragraph [0037] discloses the beating pattern is present due to the interference; paragraph [0052] also discloses the scattering objects are placed at locations to enhance the multimode interference pattern).
The sensor used by Englund is intended to detect an interference pattern from the waveguide (paragraph [0045]). Santori discloses an interference in the waveguide produces a spatial beating pattern that varies relative to a particular position (paragraph [0023]), and further discloses the predefined locations are chosen to contrast the scattering of this spatial beating pattern (paragraph [0052]). Therefore, the light signal will have a better signal-to-noise (SNR) ratio due to the enhanced contrast. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would find it obvious to combine the waveguide taught in Englund with the predefined sensing locations chosen based on known spatial interference patterns taught in Santori in order to achieve a better SNR ratio of the signal.
Regarding claim 36, Englund as modified by Santori teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1, and further teaches the MMI-WG has a substantially constant width in the direction of propagation between the input end and an opposing end (Englund: see Fig. 2A, which depicts the waveguide 260 as having a substantially constant width in the propagation direction, indicated by the arrow pointing to the right).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Englund (US20150168217A1) in view of Santori (US20140362374A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gao ("Light coupling for on-chip optical interconnects", Optics & Laser Technology, Volume 97, 2017, Pages 154-160, ISSN 0030-3992, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.optlastec.2017.06.017.).
Regarding claim 3, Englund as modified by Santori teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1, but fails to teach the sensor is spaced apart from the lateral surface of the MMI-WG such that the scattered light propagates from the lateral surface of the MMI-WG through air to reach the sensor.
However, in the same field of endeavor of waveguides used in optical detection, Gao teaches spacing the sensor apart from the waveguide (abstract; page 154, column 2, paragraph 2).
Gao discloses the air gap can be used as a coupling channel (page 157, column 2, paragraph 1) and allows the coupling ratio to be manipulated, therefore allowing a user to control the intensity of the transmitted light depending on the sensing application (page 156, column 2, paragraph 1 - page 157, column 1, paragraph 1). Thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would find it obvious to combine the spectrometer of Englund and Santori with the air gap taught in Gao in order to manipulate the coupling ratio of the light going to the sensor.
Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Englund (US20150168217A1) in view of Santori (US20140362374A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kita ("High-performance and scalable on-chip digital Fourier transform spectroscopy". Nat Commun 9, 4405 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-06773-2).
Regarding claim 37, Englund as modified by Santori teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1, but fails to teach the one or more processors are configured to apply a machine learning model to the data generated by the sensor to reconstruct a spectrum of the input light from the detected scattered light intensity pattern.
However, in the same field of endeavor of spectrometers, Kita discloses the use of a machine learning model to determine the spectrum of light (abstract; page 3, column 2, paragraph 2 - page 5, column 1; Figs. 3 and 4 depicts the generated spectra).
Kita discloses the described machine learning model provides an enhanced resolution of spectrum generation (page 6, column 1, paragraph 1). Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would find it obvious to combine the spectrometer of Englund as modified by Santori with the machine learning model taught in Kita in order to benefit from an enhanced resolution of the spectrum generated.
Claims 14-16, 21-24, 26-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt (US20200011795A1) in view of Englund (US20150168217A1) and Santori (US20140362374A1).
Regarding claim 14, Schmidt teaches a system for particle identification (paragraph [0006]), comprising:
an excitation light source (element marked 'Excite, Fig. 1A) configured to excite a particle and to cause the particle to emit emission light (paragraph [0049] disclose fluorescence signals from particles); and
one or more processors configured to determine an identity of the particle (paragraph [0237] discloses a processor used to identify an analyte).
Schmidt discloses a multi-mode interference waveguide (paragraph [0009]) but does not disclose
a multi-mode interference waveguide (MMI-WG), comprising:
an input end;
a lateral surface; and
an input port disposed on the input end of the MMI-WG and configured to guide the emission light emitted from the particle to enter the MMI-WG, such that the emission light in the MMI-WG propagates in a direction away from the input end;
a sensor configured to detect scattered light that scattered through the lateral surface of the MMI-WG at one or more predefined locations on the lateral surface, wherein the one or more predefined locations are selected based on known spatial interference patterns formed by one or more predetermined wavelengths of light, and to generate data based on the detected scattered light, wherein the data indicates an intensity of the scattered light; and
one or more processors configured to determine, based on the intensity of the scattered light indicated by the data generated by the sensor.
However, in the same field of endeavor of multi-mode interference waveguides, Englund teaches a multi-mode interference waveguide (MMI-WG) (260, Fig. 2A, paragraph [0005] further discloses the spectrometer comprising a multimode waveguide) comprising:
an input end (paragraph [0056] discusses the input end of the MMI waveguide, however it is the examiner's position that any waveguide would have an input end);
a lateral surface (the examiner is interpreting lateral to be the side parallel to the longest dimension of the waveguide; Figs. 2A and 2B depict this lateral surface); and
an input port (it is the position of the examiner that all waveguides have some sort of an input port) disposed on the input end of the MMI-WG and configured to guide the mission light emitted from the particle (paragraph [0007] discloses the sensor region comprises a plurality of nanoparticles) to enter the MMI-WG, such that light in the MMI-WG propagates in a direction away from the input end (Fig. 2A depicts the light, shown as an arrow in the waveguide portion, directed away from an input end);
a sensor (270, Fig. 2A) configured to detect scattered light that scattered through the lateral surface of the MMI-WG (see signals represented by arrows coming from the lateral region 262 towards sensor 270; paragraph [0045])
and to generate data based on the detected scattered light, wherein the data indicates an intensity of the scattered light (Fig. 1C depicts intensity data gathered by the sensor); and
one or more processors (272, Fig. 2A) configured to determine, based on the intensity of the scattered light indicated by the data generated by the sensor, one or more wavelengths of the input light (paragraphs [0008], [0010], [0037], [0045], and [0049] discloses the processor determining the spectrum of the light from an interference pattern of the scattered light).
Schmidt discloses the use of multi-mode interference waveguides is helpful in the identification of target particles as they are highly sensitive and therefore increases the capability of optofluidic devices (paragraph [0006]). Englund discloses an advantage of the described waveguide is it can be fabricated in high volume (abstract). Thus, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the particle identification system taught in Schmidt with the multi-mode interference waveguide taught in Englund as it increases the capability of the device without hindering production times.
Schmidt as modified by Englund fails to teach detecting scattered light at one or more predefined locations on the lateral surface, wherein the one or more predefined locations are selected based on known spatial interference patterns formed by one or more predetermined wavelengths of light.
However, in the same field of endeavor of multimode waveguides used in spectrometers, Santori discloses a waveguide (114, Fig. 1) and a sensor (129, Fig. 1) which is configured to detect scattered light a plurality of locations through the lateral surface (see signals 126 propagating from the waveguide 114 to the sensor 129), where the predefined locations (124, Fig. 1) are chosen based on known spatial interference patterns (paragraph [0027] discloses the configuration of the scattering objects is chosen to correspond to an intensity of the spatial beating pattern in the light traveling through the waveguide; paragraph [0037] discloses the beating pattern is present due to the interference; paragraph [0052] also discloses a secondary embodiment where the scattering objects are placed at locations to enhance the multimode interference pattern).
The sensor used by Englund is intended to detect an interference pattern from the waveguide (paragraph [0045]). Santori discloses an interference in the waveguide produces a spatial beating pattern that varies relative to a particular position (paragraph [0023]), and further discloses the predefined locations are chosen to contrast the scattering of this spatial beating pattern (paragraph [0052]). Therefore, light signal will have a better signal-to-noise (SNR) ratio due to the enhanced contrast. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would find it obvious to combine the waveguide taught in Schmidt as modified by Englund with the predefined sensing locations chosen based on known spatial interference patterns taught in Santori in order to achieve a better SNR ratio of the signal.
Regarding claim 15, Schmidt as modified by Englund and Santori teaches the invention as explained above in claim 14, and further teaches the particle comprises a fluorescent molecule (Schmidt: paragraph [0049]).
Regarding claim 16, Schmidt as modified by Englund and Santori teaches the invention as explained above in claim 14, and further teaches the particle is fluorescently labeled (Schmidt: paragraph [0049]).
Regarding claim 21, Schmidt as modified by Englund and Santori teaches the invention as explained above in claim 14, and further teaches a fluid channel configured to hold a fluid medium in which the particle is disposed (Schmidt: paragraph [0007]; 114, Fig. 1C).
Regarding claim 22, Schmidt as modified by Englund and Santori teaches the invention as explained above in claim 14, and further teaches the excitation light source is incident on the fluid channel to excite the particle (Schmidt: paragraph [0098]).
Regarding claim 23, Schmidt as modified by Englund and Santori teaches the invention as explained above in claim 14, and further teaches determining the identity of the particle comprises:
determining, based on the intensity of the scattered light indicated by the data generated by the sensor, one or more wavelength of the emission light (Englund: paragraphs [0008], [0010], [0037], [0045], and [0049] discloses the processor determining the spectrum of the light from an interference pattern of the scattered light); and
determining, based on the determined one or more wavelengths of the emission light, the identity of the particle (Schmidt: paragraph [0237] discloses determining if a signal is from a first or second wavelength, and then determining the identity of an analyte).
Spectroscopy, which determines a spectra of radiation, is an essential tool in determining properties of manner with known advantages of being non-destructive and rapid. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to combine the spectroscopic determination of wavelength of emitted light taught in Englund with the particle identification taught in Schmidt as modified by Englund and Santori as using spectroscopy to identify material is non-destructive and rapid.
Regarding claim 24, Schmidt as modified by Englund and Santori teaches the invention as explained above in claim 14, and further teaches the lateral surface comprises one of a top surface of the MMI-WG and a bottom surface of the MMI-WG (inherent in the waveguide of Schmidt).
Regarding claim 26, Schmidt as modified by Englund and Santori teaches the invention as explained above in claim 14, and further teaches one or more optical elements configured to guide the scattered light to the sensor (Englund: paragraph [0056] discloses an objective which guides the light from the waveguide to the sensor).
The objective of Englund ensures the light is collected and reaches the sensor. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would find it obvious to combine the system of Schmidt as modified by Englund and Santori with the objective taught in Englund in order to ensure the light is collected properly to reach the sensor.
Regarding claim 27, Schmidt as modified by Englund and Santori teaches the invention as explained above in claim 14, and further teaches the sensor comprises a two-dimensional sensor configured to detect the scattered light scattered through the lateral surface of the MMI-WG (Englund: paragraph [0049]); and
the data generated by the sensor comprises a two-dimensional image based on the detected scattered light (Englund: paragraph [0049] discloses the use of a 2D sensor, such as "those used in smartphones and digital cameras". The images of these types of sensors is 2D, thus the examiner is interpreting the sensor mentioned generates a 2D image).
Englund discloses that 2D sensors are inexpensive and widely used (paragraph [0049]). Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would find it obvious to combine the device of Schmidt, Englund, and Santori with the 2D sensor taught in Englund as it is inexpensive and widely used.
Regarding claim 28, Schmidt as modified by Englund and Santori teaches the invention as explained above in claim 14, and further teaches the lateral surface of the MMI-WG comprises at least one modified portion corresponding to the one or more predefined locations that enhances scattering at the predefined location (Santori: paragraph [0027] discloses the configuration of the scattering objects is chosen to correspond to an intensity of the spatial beating pattern in the light traveling through the waveguide; paragraph [0055] discloses scattering objects are placed at an apex of the light pattern).
Santori teaches the placement of scattering objects at the apex of the light pattern can scatter an elevated magnitude of the signal, therefore ensuring the signal is a detectable magnitude (paragraph [0055]). Further, Santori discloses the scattering objects ensure the signals travel in an intended direction, and backscattering is reduced (paragraph [0036]). Thus, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to combine the waveguide taught by Schmidt as modified by Englund and Santori with the scattering objects at predefined location position taught in Santori in order to elevate the magnitude of the signal and ensure the signal is traveling in an intended direction.
Regarding claim 29, Schmidt as modified by Englund and Santori teaches the invention as explained above in claim 28, and further teaches the modified portion comprises one or more of:
an etched portion of the lateral surface (Santori: paragraph [0025] discloses the scattering objects may be etched into the waveguide).
As discussed above in claim 28, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to combine the waveguide taught by Schmidt as modified by Englund and Santori with the etched scattering objects taught in Santori in order to elevate the magnitude of the signal and ensure the signal is traveling in an intended direction.
Regarding claim 30, Schmidt as modified by Englund and Santori teaches the invention as explained above in claim 28, and further teaches input light of a first wavelength (Englund: multiple wavelengths are used in the device, see Fig. 3A) scatters at the predefined location with an intensity above a predefined threshold (Santori: paragraph [0027] discloses the scattering objects at the predefined locations are configured to scatter an intensity signal according to the pattern present in the light traveling along the waveguide; paragraph [0055] discloses the scattering objects at the apex of the pattern may elevate the magnitude of the signal to a detectable magnitude. It is the interpretation of the examiner that a detectable magnitude would be a predefined threshold); and
input light of a second wavelength (Englund: multiple wavelengths are used in the device, see Fig. 3A)scatters at the predefined location with an intensity below the predefined threshold (Santori: it would naturally follow that using a second wavelength of light would result in a different pattern present in the light traveling along the waveguide. Therefore, the scattering objects would not be aligned with the apex of the pattern as described in paragraph [0055] and the magnitude of the signal would not be elevated above the detectable magnitude).
Santori discloses that the scattering objects may act as drop filters (paragraph [0014]), therefore enabling a simple and straightforward determination of if a specific wavelength is present or not. Thus, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the spectrometer of Englund as modified by Santori with the predefined threshold taught in Santori in order to determine if a specific wavelength is present in a simple and straightforward manner that will save calculation time.
Regarding claim 31, Schmidt as modified by Englund and Santori teaches the invention as explained above in claim 28, and further teaches the sensor is configured to detect the scattered light after scattering through the modified portion of the lateral surface of the MMI- WG (Santori: paragraph [0028]).
As discussed above in claim 28, the scattering objects elevate the magnitude of the signal and ensure the signal is traveling in an intended direction. Thus, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the system of Schmidt as modified by Englund and Santori with the sensor configuration taught in Santori in order to receive magnified signals.
Regarding claim 32, Schmidt as modified by Englund and Santori teaches the invention as explained above in claim 23, and further teaches determining the one or more wavelengths of the input light comprises determining whether the intensity of the scattered light exceeds a predefined intensity threshold (Santori: paragraph [0027] discloses the scattering objects at the predefined locations are configured to scatter an intensity signal according to the pattern present in the light traveling along the waveguide; paragraph [0055] discloses the scattering objects at the apex of the pattern may elevate the magnitude of the signal to a detectable magnitude. It is the interpretation of the examiner that a detectable magnitude would be a predefined threshold).
As explained above in claim 30, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the spectrometer of Englund as modified by Santori with the predefined threshold taught in Santori in order to determine if a specific wavelength is present in a simple and straightforward manner that will save calculation time.
Regarding claim 33, Schmidt as modified by Englund and Santori teaches the invention as explained above in claim 23, and further teaches the data generated by the sensor comprises a two-dimensional image (Englund: paragraph [0049] discloses the use of a 2D sensor, such as "those used in smartphones and digital cameras". The images of these types of sensors is 2D, thus the examiner is interpreting the sensor mentioned generates a 2D image); and
determining the one or more wavelengths of the emission light comprises applying a pattern-recognition operation to image (Englund: paragraphs [0008], [0010] discloses storing a mapping of interference patterns and using them to determine a wavelength spectrum).
Englund discloses that 2D sensors are inexpensive and widely used (paragraph [0049]). Englund further discloses the described operation used to image is useful for situations encountered in practical applications because of the continuity of spectra (paragraph [0051]). Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would find it obvious to combine the device of Schmidt, Englund, and Santori with the 2D sensor taught in Englund as it is inexpensive and widely used and the pattern-recognition operation enables practical application.
Regarding claim 34, Schmidt teaches a method (abstract), performed at a particle identification system (paragraph [0006]) comprising an excitation light source (element marked 'Excite’, Fig. 1A), a sensor (element marked 'collect', Fig. 1A), and a multi-mode interference waveguide (MMI-WG) (paragraph [0009]), the method comprising:
exciting, by the excitation light source, a particle to cause the particle to emit emission light (paragraph [0049] disclose fluorescence signals from particles. The examiner is interpreting this to mean the light source has excited the particle to emit emission light); and
determining, by one or more processors, an identity of the particle (paragraph [0237] discloses a processor used to identify an analyte).
Schmidt fails to teach detecting, by the sensor, scattered light that scattered through a lateral surface of the MMI-WG at one or more predefined locations on the lateral surface, wherein the one or more predefined locations are selected based on known spatial interference patterns formed by one or more predetermined wavelengths of light, wherein the MMI-WG comprises:
an input end;
the lateral surface; and
an input port disposed on the input end of the MMI-WG and configured to guide the emission light emitted from the particle to enter the MMI-WG, such that the emission light in the MMI-WG propagates in a direction away from the input end;
generating, by the sensor, data based on the detected scattered light, wherein the data indicates an intensity of the scattered light; and using the intensity of the scattered light indicated by the data generated by the sensor to identify a particle.
However, Englund teaches a multi-mode interference waveguide (MMI-WG) (260, Fig. 2A, paragraph [0005] further discloses the spectrometer comprising a multimode waveguide) comprising:
an input end (paragraph [0056] discusses the input end of the MMI waveguide, however it is the examiner's position that any waveguide would have an input end);
a lateral surface (the examiner is interpreting lateral to be the side parallel to the longest dimension of the waveguide; Fig. 2A depicts this lateral surface); and
an input port (it is the position of the examiner that all waveguides have some sort of an input port) disposed on the input end of the MMI-WG and configured to guide the mission light emitted from the particle (paragraph [0007] discloses the sensor region comprises a plurality of nanoparticles) to enter the MMI-WG, such that light in the MMI-WG propagates in a direction away from the input end (Fig. 2B depicts the light, shown as an arrow in the waveguide portion, directed away from an input end);
a sensor (270, Fig. 2A) configured to detect scattered light that scattered through the lateral surface of the MMI-WG (see signals represented by arrows coming from the lateral region 262 towards sensor 270; paragraph [0045])
and to generate data based on the detected scattered light, wherein the data indicates an intensity of the scattered light (Fig. 1C depicts intensity data gathered by the sensor); and
one or more processors (272, Fig. 2A) configured to determine, based on the intensity of the scattered light indicated by the data generated by the sensor, one or more wavelengths of the input light (paragraphs [0008], [0010], [0037], [0045], and [0049] discloses the processor determining the spectrum of the light from an interference pattern of the scattered light).
Schmidt discloses the use of multi-mode interference waveguides is helpful in the identification of target particles as they are highly sensitive and therefore increases the capability of optofluidic devices (paragraph [0006]). Englund discloses an advantage of the described waveguide is it can be fabricated in high volume (abstract). Thus, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the particle identification system taught in Schmidt with the multi-mode interference waveguide taught in Englund as it increases the capability of the device without hindering production times.
Schmidt as modified by Englund fails to teach detecting scattered light at one or more predefined locations on the lateral surface, wherein the one or more predefined locations are selected based on known spatial interference patterns formed by one or more predetermined wavelengths of light.
However, in the same field of endeavor of multimode waveguides used in spectrometers, Santori discloses a waveguide (114, Fig. 1) and a sensor (129, Fig. 1) which is configured to detect scattered light a plurality of locations through the lateral surface (see signals 126 propagating from the waveguide 114 to the sensor 129), where the predefined locations (124, Fig. 1) are chosen based on known spatial interference patterns (paragraph [0027] discloses the configuration of the scattering objects is chosen to correspond to an intensity of the spatial beating pattern in the light traveling through the waveguide; paragraph [0037] discloses the beating pattern is present due to the interference; paragraph [0052] also discloses a secondary embodiment where the scattering objects are placed at locations to enhance the multimode interference pattern).
The sensor used by Englund is intended to detect an interference pattern from the waveguide (paragraph [0045]). Santori discloses an interference in the waveguide produces a spatial beating pattern that varies relative to a particular position (paragraph [0023]), and further discloses the predefined locations are chosen to contrast the scattering of this spatial beating pattern (paragraph [0052]). Therefore, the light signal will have a better signal-to-noise (SNR) ratio due to the enhanced contrast. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would find it obvious to combine the waveguide taught in Schmidt as modified by Englund with the predefined sensing locations chosen based on known spatial interference patterns taught in Santori in order to achieve a better SNR ratio of the signal.
Regarding claim 35, Schmidt teaches a non-transitory computer readable storage medium (paragraph [0218]) storing instructions configured to be executed by one or more processors (paragraph [0216]) of a particle identification system (paragraph [0006]) comprising an excitation light source (element marked 'Excite, Fig. 1A) , a sensor (element marked 'collect', Fig. 1A), and a multi-mode interference waveguide (MMI-WG) (paragraph [0009]), the method comprising:
exciting, by the excitation light source, a particle to cause the particle to emit emission light (paragraph [0049] disclose fluorescence signals from particles); and determining, by one or more processors, an identity of the particle (paragraph [0237] discloses a processor used to identify an analyte).
Schmidt fails to teach detecting, by the sensor, scattered light that scattered through a lateral surface of the MMI-WG at one or more predefined locations on the lateral surface, wherein the one or more predefined locations are selected based on known spatial interference patterns formed by one or more predetermined wavelengths of light, wherein the MMI-WG comprises:
an input end;
the lateral surface; and
an input port disposed on the input end of the MMI-WG and configured to guide the emission light emitted from the particle to enter the MMI-WG, such that the emission light in the MMI-WG propagates in a direction away from the input end;
generating, by the sensor, data based on the detected scattered light, wherein the data indicates an intensity of the scattered light; and using the intensity of the scattered light indicated by the data generated by the sensor to identify the particle.
However, in the same field of endeavor of multi-mode interference waveguides, Englund teaches a multi-mode interference waveguide (MMI-WG) (260, Fig. 2A, paragraph [0005] further discloses the spectrometer comprising a multimode waveguide) comprising:
an input end (paragraph [0056] discusses the input end of the MMI waveguide, however it is the examiner's position that any waveguide would have an input end);
a lateral surface (the examiner is interpreting lateral to be the side parallel to the longest dimension of the waveguide; Fig. 2A depict this lateral surface); and
an input port (it is the position of the examiner that all waveguides have some sort of an input port) disposed on the input end of the MMI-WG and configured to guide the mission light emitted from the particle (paragraph [0007] discloses the sensor region comprises a plurality of nanoparticles) to enter the MMI-WG, such that light in the MMI-WG propagates in a direction away from the input end (Fig. 2A depicts the light, shown as an arrow in the waveguide portion, directed away from an input end);
a sensor (270, Fig. 2A) configured to detect scattered light that scattered through the lateral surface of the MMI-WG (see signals represented by arrows coming from the lateral region 262 towards sensor 270; paragraph [0045])
and to generate data based on the detected scattered light, wherein the data indicates an intensity of the scattered light (Fig. 1C depicts intensity data gathered by the sensor); and
one or more processors (272, Fig. 2A) configured to determine, based on the intensity of the scattered light indicated by the data generated by the sensor, one or more wavelengths of the input light (paragraphs [0008], [0010], [0037], [0045], and [0049] discloses the processor determining the spectrum of the light from an interference pattern of the scattered light).
Schmidt discloses the use of multi-mode interference waveguides is helpful in the identification of target particles as they are highly sensitive and therefore increases the capability of optofluidic devices (paragraph [0006]). Englund discloses an advantage of the described waveguide is it can be fabricated in high volume (abstract). Thus, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the particle identification system taught in Schmidt with the multi-mode interference waveguide taught in Englund as it increases the capability of the device without hindering production times.
Schmidt as modified by Englund fails to teach detecting scattered light at one or more predefined locations on the lateral surface, wherein the one or more predefined locations are selected based on known spatial interference patterns formed by one or more predetermined wavelengths of light.
However, in the same field of endeavor of multimode waveguides used in spectrometers, Santori discloses a waveguide (114, Fig. 1) and a sensor (129, Fig. 1) which is configured to detect scattered light a plurality of locations through the lateral surface (see signals 126 propagating from the waveguide 114 to the sensor 129), where the predefined locations (124, Fig. 1) are chosen based on known spatial interference patterns (paragraph [0027] discloses the configuration of the scattering objects is chosen to correspond to an intensity of the spatial beating pattern in the light traveling through the waveguide; paragraph [0037] discloses the beating pattern is present due to the interference; paragraph [0052] also discloses a secondary embodiment where the scattering objects are placed at locations to enhance the multimode interference pattern).
The sensor used by Englund is intended to detect an interference pattern from the waveguide (paragraph [0045]). Santori discloses an interference in the waveguide produces a spatial beating pattern that varies relative to a particular position (paragraph [0023]), and further discloses the predefined locations are chosen to contrast the scattering of this spatial beating pattern (paragraph [0052]). Therefore, the light signal will have a better signal-to-noise (SNR) ratio due to the enhanced contrast. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would find it obvious to combine the waveguide taught in Schmidt as modified by Englund with the predefined sensing locations chosen based on known spatial interference patterns taught in Santori in order to achieve a better SNR ratio of the signal.
Claims 17, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt (US20200011795A1) in view of Englund (US20150168217A1) and Santori (US20140362374A1) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Black ( "Multi-Channel Velocity Multiplexing on a PDMS Based Optofluidic Chip," 2018 IEEE Photonics Conference (IPC), Reston, VA, USA, 2018, pp. 1-2, doi: 10.1109/IPCon.2018.8527116.).
Regarding claim 17, Schmidt as modified by Englund and Santori teaches the invention as explained above in claim 14, but fails to teach the particle comprises a quantum dot.
However, in the same field of endeavor of optofluidic devices, Black teaches the use of an multi-mode interference waveguide to detect particles, such as quantum dots (page 2, paragraph 1).
Black discloses quantum dots aid in viewing the patterns made from the light in the fluid channels (page 2, paragraph 1). Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to combine the device of Schmidt as modified by Englund and Santori with the use of quantum dots as taught in Black in order to aid in viewing the light patterns of the fluid channel.
Regarding claim 18, Schmidt as modified by Englund and Santori teaches the invention as explained above in claim 14, but fails to teach the particle is labeled with one or more quantum dots.
However, Black teaches the use of an multi-mode interference waveguide to detect particles, such as quantum dots (page 2, paragraph 1).
Black discloses quantum dots aid in viewing the patterns made from the light in the fluid channels (page 2, paragraph 1). Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to combine the device of Schmidt as modified by Englund and Santori with the use of quantum dots as taught in Black in order to aid in viewing the light patterns of the fluid channel.
Regarding claim 20, Schmidt as modified by Englund and Santori teaches the invention as explained above in claim 14, but fails to teach a particle is bound to a carrier particle.
However, Black teaches the use of carrier particles (beads, page 2, paragraph 2) in the optofluidic device.
Black discloses the beads give the particles fluorescence, and are used with a variety of bioparticles (page 2, paragraphs 2 and 2). Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would find it obvious to combine the system taught in Schmidt as modified by Englund and Santori with the carrier particles taught in Black as carrier particles are used to ensure the particle emits fluorescence.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt (US20200011795A1) in view of Englund (US20150168217A1) and Santori (US20140362374A1) as applied to claims 14, 23, and 28 above, and further in view of Aizawa (US20210190692A1), as evidenced by Renishaw (https://www.renishaw.com/en/why-we-use-raman-spectroscopy--25803?srsltid=AfmBOoq0x7nmxkTAb1QzAmWG0DnGbcSEIcLh47zd2EMkPy05vwkPObmg).
Regarding claim 19, Schmidt as modified by Englund and Santori teaches the invention as explained in claim 14, but fails to teach the particle scatters light via Rayleigh or Raman scattering.
However, Aizawa discloses the use of Raman scattering to identify particles (paragraphs [0064], [0065]).
Raman scattering is a well-known and widely used technique in the art that has many advantages such as being non-contact and non-destructive, and being able to detect trace amounts of material (Renishaw: page 4, first two paragraphs). A person having ordinary skill in the art would be able to reasonably apply the technique to the particle identification system taught in Schmidt as modified by Englund and Santori with the Raman scattering method taught in Aizawa as it is a well-known and widely used method with the known benefits of being non-contact, non-destructive, and the ability to detect trace amounts of material. Thus, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the particle identification system taught in Schmidt as modified by Englund and Santori with the Raman scattering taught in Aizawa as Raman scattering is known to have the advantages of being non-contact, non-destructive, and the ability to detect trace amounts of material
Regarding claim 32, Schmidt as modified by Englund and Santori teaches the invention as explained in claim 23, but fails to teach determining the one or more wavelengths of the emission light comprises determining whether the intensity of the scattered light exceeds a predefined intensity threshold.
However, Aizawa teaches comparing intensity to a predefined threshold to determine wavelength (paragraph [0071]).
As discussed above in claim 30, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would find it obvious to combine the system of Schmidt as modified by Englund and Santori with the threshold method taught in Aizawa in order to prevent the scattering signal from being weakened.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt (US20200011795A1) in view of Englund (US20150168217A1) and Santori (US20140362374A1) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Gao ("Light coupling for on-chip optical interconnects", Optics & Laser Technology, Volume 97, 2017, Pages 154-160, ISSN 0030-3992, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.optlastec.2017.06.017.).
Regarding claim 25, Schmidt as modified by Englund and Santori teaches the invention as explained above in claim 14, but fails to teach the sensor is spaced apart from the lateral surface of the MMI-WG such that the scattered light propagates from the lateral surface of the MMI-WG through air to reach the sensor.
However, Gao teaches spacing the sensor apart from the waveguide (abstract; page 154, column 2, paragraph 2).
Gao discloses the air gap can be used as a coupling channel (page 157, column 2, paragraph 1) and allows the coupling ratio to be manipulated, therefore allowing a user to control the intensity of the transmitted light depending on the sensing application (page 156, column 2, paragraph 1 - page 157, column 1, paragraph 1). Thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would find it obvious to combine the system of Schmid as modified by Englund and Santori with the air gap taught in Gao in order to manipulate the coupling ratio of the light going to the sensor.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alexandria Mendoza whose telephone number is (571)272-5282. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thur 11:00-8:00 ET.
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, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at (571) 270-5789. 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.
/ALEXANDRIA MENDOZA/Examiner, Art Unit 2877 /MICHELLE M IACOLETTI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights