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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lor et al. (US 2017/0317471) in view of Li et al. (US 2015/0018901).
Claim 1.
Lor et al. teaches a waveguide for electromagnetic waves comprising:
an optical path written into a pattern, E.G, [0094].
a waveguide formed by lithographic/e-beam patterning, E.G. [0094]
portions of the optical path formed across multiple writing cells;
cell boundaries between adjacent patterned portions, E.G. [0094].
stitching errors occurring at cell boundaries, thereby teaching, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a plurality of optical-path segments and stitch boundaries where adjacent segments are joined, E.G. [0094].
Lor et al. does not explicitly teach:
at least some stitch boundaries where the optical path defines an outward taper having a maximum width greater than a width of the optical path at portions remote from the stitch boundary.
Li et al. teaches:
optical waveguides having tapered waveguide regions;
waveguide portions with varying widths;
taper geometries configured to improved optical coupling and transmission efficiency, E.G. [0023]-[0025], [0040], claims 2-3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention as made to modify the waveguide of Lor et al. to include the tapered waveguide geometry taught by Li et al. or near the interfaces between adjacent patterned waveguide portions because tapering was known to improve optical coupling, reduce transmission losses, and improve propagation efficiency.
Applying Li’s known taper geometry to the stitched waveguide portions of Lor would have yielded the predictable result of improving optical performance across interfaces between adjacent waveguide segments. KSR Int’l Co. Teleflex Inc, 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Claim 2.
Claim 2 is unpatentable over Lor et al. in view of Li et al. and for the reasons set forth with respect to claim 1.
Li et al. teaches tapered waveguide structures configured to reduce optical loss and improve optical mode transfer.
It would have been obvious to configured the taper as an adiabatic known technique for reducing insertion loss and improving optical.
Claim 3.
Claim 3 is unpatentable over Lor et al. in view of Li et al. and for the reasons set forth with respect to claim 1.
Li et al. teaches optical waveguide paths including bends and routed waveguide configurations.
The particular bending radius constitutes a result-effective variable affecting optical loss and device footprint.
It would have been obvious to optimize the bend radius, including a bending radius of 200 µm or less, through routine experimentation to achieve desired optical and spatial performance characteristics.
Claim 4.
Claim 4 is unpatentable over Lor et al. in view of Li et al. and for the reasons set forth with respect to claim 1.
Lor et al. teaches lithographically formed waveguide patterns fabricated within limited writing fields, E.G. [0094].
The recited pattern area constitutes a result-effective variable dependent upon desired device footprint, routing density, and fabrication constraints. Optimization of the occupied area through routine experimentation would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP §2144.05.
Claim 5.
Claim 5 is unpatentable over Lor et al. in view of Li et al. and for the reasons set forth with respect to claim 1.
Li et al. teaches optical waveguides configured to transmit optical/electromagnetic radiation. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the recited wavelength range merely defines an intended operating environment and does not impose additional structural limitations on the waveguide. Selection of a particular operating wavelength within a known optical wavelength range would have been obvious.
Claim 6
Claim 6 is unpatentable over Lor et al. in view of Li et al. and for the reasons set forth with respect to claim 1, and further in view of the general knowledge in the art.
Optical heaters were well known in photonic integrated circuits for thermal tuning of optical paths.
It would have been obvious to provide a heater in thermal communication with the optical path to permit thermal tuning and control of optical characteristics, representing the predictable use of a known element according to its established function. KSR.
Claim 7.
Claim 7 is unpatentable over Lor et al. in view of Li et al. and for the reasons set forth with respect to claim 1.
Lor et al. teaches silicon waveguides formed on an SOI substrate and silicon oxide layers associated with the waveguide structure, E.G. [0094].
Claim 7 recites that the optical path comprises one or more of SIN4, SIO2 or silicon.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, satisfaction of any one of the recited materials meets the limitation. Accordingly, Lor et al. teaches at least silicon and/or SIO2.
Claim 8.
Claim 8 is unpatentable over Lor et al. in view of Li et al. and for the reasons set forth with respect to claim 1, and further in view of the general knowledge in the art.
Chemical-mechanical planarization (CMP) was a well-known semiconductor and photonic fabrication technique. Employing CMP merely utilizes a known manufacturing technique to improve surface planarity and fabrication uniformity. KSR>
Claim 9.
Claim 9 is unpatentable over Lor et al. in view of Li et al. and for the reasons set forth with respect to claim 1.
Optical waveguides are routinely incorporated into imaging systems. It would have been obvious to incorporate the waveguide into an imaging component to utilize the waveguide for optical signal transmission.
Claim 10.
Claim 10 is unpatentable over Lor et al. in view of Li et al. and for the reasons set forth with respect to claim 9.
Optical Coherence Tomography (OCT) systems are known imaging systems utilizing optical wavelengths and optical signal paths. It would have been obvious to implement the imaging component of claim 9 as an OCT component to perform known OCT imaging functions.
Claim 11.
Claim 11 is unpatentable over Lor et al. in view of Li et al. and for the reasons set forth with respect to claim 1.
Lor et al. explicitly teaches fabrication of the optical path using lithography and e-beam lithography, [0094].
Claim 12.
Claim 12 is unpatentable over Lor et al. in view of Li et al. and for the reasons set forth with respect to claim 11.
Lor et al. teaches fabrication across multiple writing cells and management of stitching errors between adjacent writing regions, [0094]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to employ multiple lithographic passes to form adjoining patterned regions because such techniques were known for fabricating structures extending beyond the dimensions of a single writing field.
Claim 13.
Claim 13 is unpatentable over Lor et al. in view of Li et al. and for the reasons set forth with respect to claim 1.
Optical waveguides are routinely incorporated into photonic integrated circuits and microchips. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the waveguide into a microchip reference arm for optical signal routing.
Claim 14-16.
Claims 14-16 are unpatentable over Lor et al. in view of Li et al. and for the reasons set forth with respect to claim 13.
Optical systems utilizing reference arms routinely include an optical input, a splitter, a sampling arm, an output, and a detector.
Such components are well-known elements of interferometric optical systems, including OCT systems.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate these known optical components into the microchip of claim 13 to perform known interferometric measurement functions.
Claim 15 and 16 are rejected for substantially the same reasons, as the recited sampling arm and detector output constitute known components of such interferometric optical systems.
Claim 17.
Claim 17 is unpatentable over Lor et al. in view of Li et al. and for the reasons set forth with respect to claim 1.
Claim 17 recites directing electromagnetic radiation through the substantially same waveguide structure recited in claim 1.
Directing electromagnetic radiation through the waveguide constitutes the intended use and normal operation of the waveguide and does not patentably distinguish over the apparatus of claim 1.
Claim 18.
Claim 18 is unpatentable over Lor et al. in view of Li et al. and for the reasons set forth with respect to claim 1.
Claim 18 recites replacing a reference arm with the waveguide structure substantially as recited in claim 1.
Substituting one known optical waveguide performing the same function represents the predictable substitution of prior-art elements according to their established functions and would have yielded predictable results. KSR.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICOLE F JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5040. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-5:00pm 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, David Hamaoui can be reached at 571-270-5625. 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.
/NICOLE F JOHNSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights