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 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.
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 movement device being configured to be able to move” “an off-axis field generating device configured to assist” “a second rotation device configured to be able to rotate the waveguide” “a reflection device configured to reflect” “the third rotation device or the second linear displacement device configured to be moved” “a third linear displacement device configured to move” in claims 1, 2, & 4-8.
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.
Applicant teaches the movement device can be a linear displacement device, such as a linear
motor, a screw module, etc. it can also be a device that realizes rotary motion, swing motion,
etc., such as a servo motor, a pendulum cylinder, a piezoelectric ceramic rotation device, and
the like (0051).
Applicant teaches the third rotation device 604 is a servo motor, a pendulum cylinder,
a piezoelectric ceramic rotation device, or the like (0070).
Applicant teaches the second rotation device 601 1s a servo motor, a pendulum cylinder, a piezoelectric ceramic rotation device, or the like (0058).
Applicant teaches the reflection device 602 is an emitting mirror, a prism, or the like (0066).
Applicant recites the off-axis field generating device comprises the reflection device (claim 6).
Applicant teaches the linear displacement device may be a linear motor, a screw module (0051).
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 § 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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao Tek, “Fiber Optical Power Meters”, https://gaotek.com/category/fiber-optics/fiber-testers/power-meter/ hereafter Gao Tek in view of Inbar US 20150055202 in further view of AI CN113218627.
With respect to claim 1, Gao Tek teaches a waveguide measurement device, comprising:
a detection device (fig 1) “power meters” being configured to be able to calculate an intensity “measure intensity” of the light (pg. 1, ¶ 1, line 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
592
711
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Gao Tek does not teach a lens being configured to receive light and a fiber optic device configured to conduct the light received by the lens.
Inbar, in the same field of endeavor as Gao Tek of power meters, provides prior art teaching a detection device (fig 1, 170) comprising a lens i.e. receiver device (fig 1, 118) and a fiber optic device (fig 2, 112), wherein the fiber optic device is configured to conduct light received by the lens (0020, lines 5-6 & 10-15). At the time prior to the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine a fiber optic device and lens with Gao Tek’s detection device to conveniently monitor light at different locations due to the flexibility of the fiber.
The combination does not teach receiving light coupled out of a predetermined region of a waveguide.
Al, in the same field of endeavor as Gao Tek of power meters, teaches a power meter receiving light coupled out of a predetermined region of a waveguide (fig 1, 6) (abstract, lines 1-5). At the time prior to the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to try to measure the power of light from a waveguide via the combination’s detection device to determine the efficiency of the waveguide with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 2 & 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao Tek, “Fiber Optical Power Meters”, https://gaotek.com/category/fiber-optics/fiber-testers/power-meter/ hereafter Gao Tek in view of Inbar US 20150055202 in further view of Al CN113218627 in further view of Thorlabs, “Align Fiber Collimators to Create Free Space Between Single Mode Fibers | Thorlabs Insights”, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gztPwrKodq8 Apr 1, 2021 hereafter Thorlabs.
With respect to claim 2 according to claim 1, the combination does not teach a movement device on which the receiver device is provided, the movement device being configured to be able to move the receiver device.
Thorlabs, in the field of endeavor of optical mounts, teaches a kinematic mount i.e. movement device configured to move a receiver device i.e. collimator (fig 1). At the time prior to the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Thorlab’s movement device with the combination’s receiver device as convenient means of holding/moving optics in a desired location without tediously controlling the optics by hand.
PNG
media_image2.png
894
1412
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 9 according to claim 1, the combination does not teach an aperture device being located on the light incident side of the lens, and the aperture device being opposite to the lens.
Thorlabs, in the field of endeavor of optical fibers, implicitly teaches an aperture device (fig 2 & 3) located opposite of a lens (fig 2). Examiner notes based upon the principle of reversibility of light the aperture is capable of receiving light at the incident side, wherein Thorlab implicitly teaches a fiber receiving incident light (fig 3). At the time prior to the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Thorlab’s aperture with the combination’s lens to help direct light towards the lens while protecting the lens from dirt and unwanted debris.
PNG
media_image3.png
802
1342
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
387
610
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao Tek, “Fiber Optical Power Meters”, https://gaotek.com/category/fiber-optics/fiber-testers/power-meter/ hereafter Gao Tek in view of Inbar US 20150055202 in further view of Al CN113218627 in further view of Thorlabs, “Align Fiber Collimators to Create Free Space Between Single Mode Fibers | Thorlabs Insights”, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gztPwrKodq8 Apr 1, 2021 hereafter Thorlabs in further view of Standa, “Motorized Optical Mount”, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFMYd2VqFeM, Dec 21, 2012 hereafter Standa.
With respect to claim 3 according to claim 2, the combination does not teach a first linear displacement device and a first rotation device, the first rotation device and the first linear displacement device being connected and secured to each other, the receiver device being provided on the first rotation device or the first linear displacement device.
Standa, in the field of endeavor of optical mounts, teaches a first linear displacement device being connected and secured to a rotation device (fig 1). Standa implicitly teaches the linear displacement device comprises holes which optics may be mounted on. At the time prior to the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Standa’s linear displacement device and first rotation device with the combination’s receiver device to precisely hold/move optics in a desired location without tediously controlling the optics by hand.
PNG
media_image5.png
924
1428
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over over Gao Tek, “Fiber Optical Power Meters”, https://gaotek.com/category/fiber-optics/fiber-testers/power-meter/ hereafter Gao Tek in view of Inbar US 20150055202 in further view of AI CN113218627 in further view of Standa, “Motorized Optical Mount”, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFMYd2VqFeM, Dec 21, 2012 hereafter Standa.
With respect to claim 4 according to claim 1, the combination does not teach an off-axis field generating device.
Standa, in the field of endeavor of optical mounts, teaches an off-axis generating device comprising a first linear displacement device being connected and secured to a rotation device (fig 1). Standa implicitly teaches the linear displacement device comprises holes which optics may be mounted on. At the time prior to the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Standa’s linear displacement device and first rotation device with the combination’s receiver device to precisely hold/move optics in a desired location without tediously controlling the optics by hand. Examiner further notes optics such as a waveguide may be attached to Standa’s off-axis field device to provide alignment of light entering the waveguide which would affect light exiting out of the waveguide.
PNG
media_image5.png
924
1428
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao Tek, “Fiber Optical Power Meters”, https://gaotek.com/category/fiber-optics/fiber-testers/power-meter/ hereafter Gao Tek in view of Inbar US 20150055202 in further view of AI CN113218627 in further view of Liu CN 111122120.
With respect to claim 10 according to claim 1, the combination does not teach the fiber optic device comprises a fiber body and a fiber core, the fiber core being connected to one end of the fiber body, and the detection device being coupled to the other end of the fiber body, the fiber core being provided opposite to the lens.
Liu, in the same field of endeavor as Gao Tek of power meters (abstract, lines 14-15 Liu), implicitly teaches a lens (fig 1, 160) is located opposite of the distal end of a fiber body (fig 1, 180), wherein the fiber body is configured to direct light towards a power meter (fig 1, 200) i.e. detection device. Liu further teaches the fiber is a single mode fiber ,therefore, it is understood the fiber has a core and cladding. Examiner notes one of ordinary skill would understand the fiber core which runs through the length of the fiber body is connect to an end of the fiber body via the cladding which surrounds the core. Liu further teaches the detection device (fig 1, 200) is coupled to the other end of the fiber body. At the time prior to the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to try to combine Lui’s fiber body with combination’s lens and detection device to accurately detect the power of light due to proper optical alignment.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frank WO 2020069400 in view of Al CN113218627 in further view of Gao Tek, “Fiber Optical Power Meters”, https://gaotek.com/category/fiber-optics/fiber-testers/power-meter/ hereafter Gao Tek in further view Inbar US 20150055202.
With respect to claim 1, Frank teaches a waveguide measurement device, comprising:
a predetermined region of the waveguide (fig 21C, 2174).
Frank does not teach a detection device being configured to calculate an intensity of the light coupled out of the predetermined region of the waveguide.
Al, in the same field of endeavor as Frank of waveguides with in/out coupling gratings, teaches a detection device i.e. power meter receiving light coupled out of a predetermined region of a waveguide (fig 1, 6) (abstract, lines 1-5).
AI does not teach a detection device being configured to calculate an intensity.
Gao Tek, in the field of endeavor of measuring optical power (0106, lines 20-21 Frank), teaches a detection device i.e. power meter configured to calculate the intensity of light (pg. 1, ¶ 1, line 1). At the time prior to the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art to try to combine Gao Tek’s detection device with Frank’s waveguide to determine the efficiency of Frank’s waveguide for quality purpose with a reasonable expectation of success.
The combination does not teach a lens being configured to receive light and a fiber optic device configured to conduct the light received by the lens.
Inbar, in the field of endeavor of power meters, provides prior art teaching a detection device (fig 1, 170) comprising a lens i.e. receiver device (fig 1, 118) and a fiber optic device (fig 2, 112), wherein the fiber optic device is configured to conduct light received by the lens (0020, lines 5-6 & 10-15). At the time prior to the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine a fiber optic device and lens with the combination’s detection device to conveniently monitor light at different locations of the combination’s waveguide due to the flexibility of the fiber.
Claim(s) 4 & 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frank WO 2020069400 in view of Al CN113218627 in further view of Gao Tek, “Fiber Optical Power Meters”, https://gaotek.com/category/fiber-optics/fiber-testers/power-meter/ hereafter Gao Tek in further view Inbar US 20150055202 in further view of Standa, “Motorized Optical Mount”, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFMYd2VqFeM Dec 21, 2012 hereafter Standa
With respect to claim 4 according to claim 1, the combination does not teach an off-axis field generating device.
Standa, in the field of endeavor of optical mounts, teaches an off-axis generating device comprising a first linear displacement device being connected and secured to a rotation device (fig 1). Standa implicitly teaches the linear displacement device comprises holes which optics may be mounted on. At the time prior to the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Standa’s linear displacement device and first rotation device with the combination’s receiver device to precisely hold/move optics in a desired location without tediously controlling the optics by hand. Examiner further notes optics such as a waveguide may be attached to Standa’s off-axis field device to provide alignment of light entering the waveguide which would affect light exiting out of the waveguide.
PNG
media_image5.png
924
1428
media_image5.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 6 according to claim 4, the combination teaches the waveguide measurement device wherein the off-axis field generating device comprises a reflection device (fig 21C, 2130 Frank) configured to reflect collimated light so that the collimated light “collimating mirror” (0191, line 28 Frank) is incident obliquely “oblique angle of incidence” (0088, line 4) (fig 21C, 2160 Frank) onto an in-coupling grating (fig 21C, 2146 Frank) of the waveguide.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 7, & 8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims or to include the limitation(s) and any intervening claims into the base claim. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As to claim 5, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious “wherein the off-axis field generating device comprises a second rotation device configured to be able to rotate the waveguide about a center of an in-coupling grating of the waveguide”, in combination with the rest of the limitations of claim 5.
As to claim 7, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious “second linear displacement device and a third rotation device, the third rotation device and the second linear displacement device being connected and secured to each other, the reflection device being provided on the third rotation device or the second linear displacement device configured to be moved parallel to the waveguide
and to be rotated”, in combination with the rest of the limitations of claim 7.
As to claim 8, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious “a third linear displacement device configured to move the waveguide so that the light reflected by the reflection device is configured to be incident obliquely onto the in-coupling grating of the waveguide.”, in combination with the rest of the limitations of claim 8.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAURICE C SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-2526. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm EST.
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, Kara Geisel can be reached at (571) 272-2416. 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.
/MAURICE C SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 2877