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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3-4 and 6-7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, lines 3-4 recites “the rest parts are cladding layers” which is grammatically incorrect. The limitation should read “the remaining parts are cladding layers”. Additionally, the limitation lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 3, line 2, recites “the waveguide” which lacks antecedent basis. For the purpose of this examination, the limitation will be interpreted as “the optical waveguide”.
Claim 1, line 3 recites “the surface” which lacks antecedent basis. For the purpose of this examination, the limitation will be interpreted as “a surface”.
Claim 4, line 3 recites “the side surface” which lacks antecedent basis. For the purpose of this examination, the limitation will be interpreted as “a side surface”.
Claim 6, line 6 recites “the side surface” which lacks antecedent basis. For the purpose of this examination, the limitation will be interpreted as “a side surface”.
Claim 4, line 2 recites “the random defect scattering structural unit” which lacks antecedent basis. For the purpose of this examination, the limitation will be interpreted as “a random defect scattering structural unit”.
Claim 5, line 6 recites “the defect unit” which lacks antecedent basis. For the purpose of this examination, the limitation will be interpreted as “the random defect scattering structural unit”. See 112(b) rejection below for further reasoning.
Claim 4, line 4 recites “the defect” which lacks antecedent basis. For the purpose of this examination, the limitation will be interpreted as “the random defect scattering structural unit”. See 112(b) rejection below for further reasoning.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “the random defect scattering structural unit” in claim 4; “a basic unit” in claim 5; “the defect unit” in claim 5.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 4 and 5 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.
Claim 4, line 2 references “the random defect scattering structural unit” as an uneven structure on a side surface of a waveguide used for scattering light from the optical waveguide while claim 5, which is dependent on claim 4, recites “a basic unit” on line 2 and “the defect unit” on line 6, which appear to similarly reference a randomly distributed and/or asymmetrically shaped structure on the surface of the optical waveguide responsible for scattering light (See Fig. 2 and 3; Pg. 6, lines 19-27). It remains unclear whether “the random defect scattering structural unit” and “a basic unit” or “the defect” are referencing the same structural unit distributed on a surface of the optical waveguide or if these elements are distinct structures. For the purpose of this examination, “a basic unit” and “the defect” will all be interpreted as “the random defect scattering structural unit”. Claim 5 is also rejected due to its dependence on claim 4.
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(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (CN 114964494 A – hereinafter “Chen ‘494”) in view of Lu et al. (CN 102681083 B) further in view of Chen et al. (CN 115683335 A – hereinafter “Chen ‘335”).
Regarding claim 1, Chen ‘494 discloses an apparatus for spectrum detection by defect scattering calculation and reconstruction, comprising a photodetector (1), light input system (4) and a multi-mode waveguide (2), and the remaining parts are cladding layers (3); one end of the light input system is connected to a light source (see Abstract, lines 15-18), and the other end of the light input system is connected to the optical waveguide (see Abstract, lines 15-18); and the photodetector is arranged on the optical waveguide and used for collecting a spot scattered from the random defect scattering structure on the optical waveguide (Fig. 1-3; Abstract; Pg. 4, lines 24-27; Pg. 4, line 43 - Pg. 5, line 1; Pg. 5, lines 15-20; Pg. 3, lines 24-35).
Chen ‘494 discloses that the spectrometer is based on optical waveguide leakage mode splitting light, implying guided-light propagation patterns resulting from imperfectly confined refractive index structure which may be caused by surface defects. Chen does not explicitly disclose wherein a surface of the optical waveguide is etched with a random defect scattering structure.
However, Lu, which relates to the field of endeavor of optical waveguide systems, discloses an optical waveguide system wherein a surface of an optical waveguide is etched with a random defect scattering structure (Lu: Fig. 2; Pg. 3, lines 31-34; Pg. 5, lines 3-11; Pg. 8, lines 16-19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Chen with an optical waveguide structure which is able to scatter light towards image sensors while reducing the size of the spectrometer while improving the utilization rate of the light received by the spectrometer (Lu: Pg. 4, lines 3-7).
Chen ‘494 in view of Lu does not explicitly disclose a multi-mode optical waveguide.
However, Chen ‘335, in the same field of endeavor of optical waveguide system, discloses a spectrometer utilizing multimode optical waveguides (3) (Fig. 2-3; Pg. 2, lines 15-20; Pg. 6, lines 26-28 and 35-38).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Chen in view of Lu with a multimode optical waveguide, increasing the overall bandwidth of the measurement system.
Regarding claim 2, Chen ‘494 in view of Lu and Chen ‘335 discloses the apparatus for spectrum detection by defect scattering calculation and reconstruction according to claim 1, as outlined above, and further discloses wherein the light input system (4) is a structure that stabilizes light after light propagation, so that a spot and power of light inputted into the optical waveguide are stable (Chen ‘494: Fig. 1-3; Abstract; Pg. 4, line 43 – Pg. 5, line 1; see claim 4).
Regarding claim 3, Chen ‘494 in view of Lu and Chen ‘335 discloses the apparatus for spectrum detection by defect scattering calculation and reconstruction according to claim 2, as outlined above, and further discloses wherein the optical waveguide is made of a transparent material in an operating band, and silicon nitride, silicon, silicon dioxide, lithium niobate, III-V semiconductor compounds or a polymer material or other material are also used to manufacture the optical waveguide (Chen ‘494: Pg. 4, lines 37-41 – where the Examiner is considering “other material”; further, Chen discloses that “all colorless transparent materials with similar refractive index and effective refractive index can be used as the substrate” where one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the effective refractive index is a waveguide-specific property that depends on the material of the waveguide).
Regarding claim 4, Chen ‘494 in view of Lu and Chen ‘335 discloses the apparatus for spectrum detection by defect scattering calculation and reconstruction according to claim 3, as outlined above, and further discloses wherein a random defect scattering structural unit is of an uneven structure on a side surface of the waveguide and is used for scattering light from the optical waveguide; the defect has a section in any shape; and a three-dimensional shape is manifested as a downward or upward pit or protrusion from the surface of the waveguide (Lu: Fig. 2; Pg. 3, lines 31-34; Pg. 5, lines 3-11; Pg. 8, lines 16-19).
Regarding claim 5, Chen ‘494 in view of Lu and Chen ‘335 discloses the apparatus for spectrum detection by defect scattering calculation and reconstruction according to claim 4, as outlined above, and further discloses wherein a spatial position, size and depth of the random defect scattering structural unit of the random defect scattering structure each have a random quantity, or one of them has a random quantity, or a part of the whole quantities has a random quantity; the obtained random defect scattering structure is randomly distributed on the surface of the optical waveguide; and the light propagation in the optical waveguide is scattered through the random defect scattering structural unit (Lu: Fig. 2; Pg. 3, lines 31-34; Pg. 5, lines 3-11; Pg. 8, lines 16-19).
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (CN 114964494 A – hereinafter “Chen ‘494”) in view of Lu et al. (CN 102681083 B).
Regarding claim 6, Chen ‘494 discloses a method for spectrum detection by defect scattering calculation and reconstruction, comprising the following steps:
1) calibration: allowing a number of calibration light of known wavelengths and intensities in a band range to enter a device, the device being the apparatus for spectrum detection and reconstruction according to any of claims 1 to 5, and the light being scattered from a side surface of the optical waveguide to obtain a light field intensity distribution on different pixels of the photodetector; storing light field intensity values obtained by the series of different wavelengths in a transmission matrix as a spectral response function (Pg. 3, lines 24-28);
2) collection of a scattered light field intensity distribution on the side surface: when light of an unknown spectrum enters the device, the light is scattered from the side surface of the optical waveguide to obtain a light field intensity distribution on the photodetector (Pg. 3, lines 29-30); and
3) spectral reconstruction: a calibrated transmission matrix and a light field distribution of unknown light form a linear equation, and a spectrum of reconstructed light to be measured is obtained by solving the linear equation (Pg. 3, lines 31-35).
Chen ‘494 discloses that the spectrometer is based on optical waveguide leakage mode splitting light, implying guided-light propagation patterns resulting from imperfectly confined refractive index structure which may be caused by surface defects. Chen ‘494 does not explicitly disclose the device being the apparatus for spectrum detection by defect scattering calculation.
However, Lu, which relates to the field of endeavor of optical waveguide systems, discloses an optical waveguide system wherein a surface of an optical waveguide (3) is etched with a random defect scattering structure, which may be used as an apparatus for spectrum detection by defect scattering calculation (Lu: Fig. 2; Pg. 3, lines 31-34; Pg. 5, lines 3-11; Pg. 8, lines 16-19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Chen with an optical waveguide structure which is able to scatter light towards image sensors while reducing the size of the spectrometer while improving the utilization rate of the light received by the spectrometer (Lu: Pg. 4, lines 3-7).
Regarding claim 7, Chen ‘494 in view of Lu discloses the method for spectrum detection by defect scattering calculation and reconstruction according to claim 6, as outlined above, and further discloses wherein the photodetector collects an optical signal scattered from the side surface of the optical waveguide (Lu: Pg. 3, lines 29-34; Pg. 7, lines 15-26).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHER YAZBACK whose telephone number is (703)756-1456. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5:30 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, 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.
/MAHER YAZBACK/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/MICHELLE M IACOLETTI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877