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 .
The amendment filed on June 02, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 8, 12-14 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Korngut et al. [US 20060066870 A1, hereafter Komgut].
As per Claim 1, Korngut teaches a system (See fig. 1, Para 40, a combined coherence-reducing component 101) configured to convert spatially coherent radiation to completely or partially spatially incoherent radiation, the system comprising:
a splitter (beam splitter 52) configured to receive and split the spatially coherent radiation into channels (See fig. 1, Para 35);
optical pathways (Para 38, component 59) having different lengths coupled to the channels, the different lengths configured to convert the spatially coherent radiation of the channels to the completely or partially spatially incoherent radiation; and
a combiner (See fig. 3, a light combiner 42) coupled to the optical pathways and configured to combine the completely or partially spatially incoherent radiation from the optical pathways into a single multimode output (Para 9-12).
As per Claim 2, Korngut teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the optical pathways are configured such that radiation in a single channel does not become incoherent since it is single mode radiation, but with an appropriate path difference, radiation in the single channel becomes incoherent with respect to radiation in one or more neighboring channels (Para 54).
As per Claim 8, Korngut teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the splitter is configured to split the spatially coherent radiation into at least 2-100 channels (See fig. 2).
As per Claim 12, Korngut teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the different lengths are configured to reduce or eliminate interference between radiation traversing different optical pathways, which converts the spatially coherent radiation to the completely or partially spatially incoherent radiation (Para 13).
As per Claim 13, Korngut teaches the system of claim 1, wherein an optical path length difference from a first optical pathway to a second optical pathway is larger than a coherence length of the spatially coherent radiation (Para 13).
As per Claim 14, Korngut teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the combiner comprises an optical fiber array (Para 6).
As per Claim 16, Korngut teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the combiner comprises a micro lens array and/or one or more macroscopic lenses (See fig. 4).
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.
Claim(s) 3-7, 10, 11, 15 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Korngut in view of Hu et al. [US 20170227399 A1, hereafter Hu].
As per Claims 3 and 5, Korngut teaches the system of claim 1.
Korngut does not explicitly teach wherein the splitter, the optical pathways, and the combiner are integrated into an integrated optical body.
Hu teaches wherein the splitter, the optical pathways, and the combiner are integrated into an integrated optical body (Para 3-4 and 36).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time the invention was made to incorporate the optical system as disclosed by Hu in order to produce enhanced signal-to-noise ratio signal and performs spectroscopy of one single mode in the multi-mode incident light.
As per Claim 4, Korngut teaches the system of claim 3.
Korngut does not explicitly teach wherein the integrated optical body comprises a microchip fabricated using complementary metal-oxide-semiconductor (CMOS) and/or indium phosphide fabrication techniques.
Hu teaches wherein the integrated optical body comprises a microchip fabricated using complementary metal-oxide-semiconductor (CMOS) and/or indium phosphide fabrication techniques (Para 3-4 and 34).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time the invention was made to incorporate the optical system as disclosed by Hu in order to produce enhanced signal-to-noise ratio signal and performs spectroscopy of one single mode in the multi-mode incident light.
As per Claims 6 and 7, Korngut teaches the system of claim 1.
Korngut does not explicitly teach comprising stacked integrated optical bodies that form a multidimensional array of waveguide emitters.
Hu teaches comprising stacked integrated optical bodies that form a multidimensional array of waveguide emitters (Para 27, wherein integrated circuit components are passive).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time the invention was made to incorporate the optical system as disclosed by Hu in order to produce enhanced signal-to-noise ratio signal and performs spectroscopy of one single mode in the multi-mode incident light.
As per Claims 10 and 18, Korngut teaches the system of claim 1.
Korngut does not explicitly teach wherein the splitter is a multimode interference (MMI) device.
Hu teaches wherein the splitter is a multimode interference (MMI) device (Para 33).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time the invention was made to incorporate the optical system as disclosed by Hu in order to produce enhanced signal-to-noise ratio signal and performs spectroscopy of one single mode in the multi-mode incident light.
As per Claim 11, Korngut teaches the system of claim 1.
Korngut does not explicitly teach wherein each optical pathway comprises a waveguide and forms a portion of a corresponding channel.
Hu teaches wherein each optical pathway comprises a waveguide and forms a portion of a corresponding channel (Para 35).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time the invention was made to incorporate the optical system as disclosed by Hu in order to produce enhanced signal-to-noise ratio signal and performs spectroscopy of one single mode in the multi-mode incident light.
As per Claim 15, Korngut teaches the system of claim 1.
Korngut does not explicitly teach wherein the combiner comprises a photonic lantern.
Hu teaches wherein the combiner comprises a photonic lantern (Para 32 and 35).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time the invention was made to incorporate the optical system as disclosed by Hu in order to produce enhanced signal-to-noise ratio signal and performs spectroscopy of one single mode in the multi-mode incident light.
As per Claim 17, Korngut teaches the system of claim 1.
Korngut does not explicitly teach wherein the spatially coherent radiation comprises visible light.
Hu teaches wherein the spatially coherent radiation comprises visible light (Para 26).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time the invention was made to incorporate the optical system as disclosed by Hu in order to produce enhanced signal-to-noise ratio signal and performs spectroscopy of one single mode in the multi-mode incident light.
As per Claim 19, Korngut teaches the system of claim 1.
Korngut does not explicitly teach a controller configured to actively control output from individual optical pathways (Para 34).
Hu teaches a controller configured to actively control output from individual optical pathways.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time the invention was made to incorporate the optical system as disclosed by Hu in order to produce enhanced signal-to-noise ratio signal and performs spectroscopy of one single mode in the multi-mode incident light.
As per Claim 20, Korngut teaches the system of claim 1.
Korngut does not explicitly teach wherein the spatially coherent radiation is converted to the completely or partially spatially incoherent radiation for metrology associated with a semiconductor manufacturing process.
Hu teaches wherein the spatially coherent radiation is converted to the completely or partially spatially incoherent radiation for metrology associated with a semiconductor manufacturing process (Para 84).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time the invention was made to incorporate the optical system as disclosed by Hu in order to produce enhanced signal-to-noise ratio signal and performs spectroscopy of one single mode in the multi-mode incident light.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Korngut in view of Stampoulidis et al. [US 20130114130 A1, hereafter Stampoulidis].
As per Claim 9, Korngut teaches the system of claim 1.
Korngut does not explicitly teach wherein the splitter is a binary tree beam splitter.
Stampoulidis teaches a plurality of optical signals using a single pump laser coupled to a set of optical splitters arranged in a binary tree configuration for powering a plurality of fiber optical amplifying path circuits (FOAP circuit) each configured to amplify one of the plurality of optical signals, where each of the optical splitters at the leaves of the binary tree is coupled to one of the plurality of FOAP circuits to provide the power required to amplify the optical signal (Para 16).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time the invention was made to incorporate a binary tree beam splitter as disclosed by Stampoulidis in order to produce a desired light beam to be incident in to the array of transparent elements of Korngut.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 02, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the remark section, with respect to claims 1-20, Applicant argued that the prior art to Korngut do not disclose the limitation of “a splitter configured to receive and split the spatially coherent radiation into channels”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Korngut, for example as shown in figure 1 and paragraph 35, disclosed “The beam entering into elements CN (beam 58) is thus reflected as a group 78 of sub-beams 66, 68, 70, 72, and 74.”. The above teaching and figure 1 show a substantially collimated light beam 22 is split in to a group 78 of sub-beams 66, 68, 70, 72, and 74, by the beam splitter 52. Therefore, Applicant’s argument on the above point is not persuasive.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MESFIN ASFAW whose telephone number is (571)270-5247. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am - 4 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, Toan Ton can be reached at 571-272-2303. 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.
/MESFIN T ASFAW/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2882
Prosecution Insights