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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph 0025, the word “Reference” should be deleted from the first line of the paragraph.
Throughout the specification, the word “Michaelson” (as in the phrase “Michaelson interferometer”) should be spelled as “Michelson” (to correctly identify the interferometer as a “Michelson interferometer”).
In paragraph 0088, “reflector 134” should be amended to read “reflector 132”, as the reflector in Fig. 2 is element 132.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
The numbering of claims is not in accordance with 37 CFR 1.126 which requires the original numbering of the claims to be preserved throughout the prosecution. When claims are canceled, the remaining claims must not be renumbered. When new claims are presented, they must be numbered consecutively beginning with the number next following the highest numbered claims previously presented (whether entered or not).
In the instant case, claim 12 appears to have been skipped as part of the preliminary amendment filed October 13, 2025.
Misnumbered claims 13-21 been renumbered claims 12-20.
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:
“An analysis device . . . configured to process an interference signal detected from the second waveguide” in claims 18 and 20.
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 2-20 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.
Regarding claim 2, lines 7-10 of the claim state that the beam splitter is configured to “partially reflect combined optical signals to form a local oscillator beam directed into the second waveguide; and partially transmit combined optical signals toward a sample external to the chip”. However, it is unclear how the beam splitter is capable of partially reflecting “combined optical signals” and partially transmitting “combined optical signals” given how the interferometer claimed works in view of the specification. The claim appears to be drawn to the embodiment of Figure 1 given the claiming of the common waveguide disposed on the chip. The interferometer operates by emitting light 1 from a light source 105 into a first waveguide 110 which is then combined at y-coupler 115 into a common waveguide 122. This light, which is now indicated by arrow 2, passes to the facet beam splitter, where part of it is reflected as per arrow 3 and part of it is transmitted as per arrow 5. The reflected light from the beam splitter and the sample (arrow 6) are then passed through the common waveguide into the second waveguide 117 as indicated by arrow 4 and detected by detector 120. This would show that only input light from the first waveguide is partially reflected and partially transmitted by the beamsplitter, not combined light as claimed.
Even though the specification states, in paragraph 0076, that the Y-coupler “may be configured to couple light coming from . . . the second waveguide 117 into the common waveguide 122”, the examiner does not see anything in the embodiment shown in Fig. 1 that would allow for light to be coupled from the second waveguide into the common waveguide to be common light as claimed. The only element at the end of the second waveguide is detector 120. A detector would only be able to detect the light that passes through the second waveguide; it would not be able to reflect light from the second waveguide so that it can be combined with light from the first waveguide to be a combined signal as claimed.
As a result, the claim is rejected as indefinite, as it is not clear how the facet beam splitter is able to partially reflect and partially transmit combined optical signals as claimed, given the examiner’s best understanding of the invention and the embodiment shown in Fig. 1. For purposes of examination, the examiner will interpret the beam splitter to partially reflect and partially transmit only input light from the light source, not combined light.
As for claim 4, the claim recites that the first and second waveguide physically combine at the beam splitter. However, this claim is unclear, as claim 2 recites that the first and second waveguide physically combine at the on-chip coupler. If the first and second waveguide have already been combined, how can they be combined again at the beam splitter? Clarification is required. For purposes of examination, the examiner will interpret the claim as if the first and second waveguide have already been combined as part of a common waveguide, and the end of the common waveguide features the beam splitter.
As for claim 5, the claim recites that the facet, which is recited in claim 2 as the beam splitter, is inclined relative to the propagation direction of the common waveguide. However, it is not clear how an inclined facet beam splitter would allow for light that is reflected by that beam splitter to return through the common waveguide to be directed into the second waveguide as required by claim 2 and as shown in the embodiment of Fig. 1. Fig. 1, which appears to be the embodiment set forth by the instant claims, shows that the facet beam splitter is perpendicular to the propagation direction of the common waveguide, not set at an incline to that waveguide. As represented by Figs. 2 and 3, an inclined facet beam splitter is only used to direct light to second waveguide 117, but not to the common waveguide 122. Additionally, while paragraph 0078 states that the facet may be inclined to the direction of extension of the common waveguide 122 to control the reflectivity of the beam splitter 104, it is unclear how this light would return directly to the common waveguide; an angled facet would appear to cause returned light to bounce off of the walls of the waveguide, potentially degrading the function of the interferometer.
As a result, it is unclear how an embodiment using a facet beam splitter that is inclined with respect to the common waveguide is used, particularly as an inclined facet, as noted above, would not appear to be capable of returning light directly to the common waveguide as shown in Fig. 1. For purposes of examination, the examiner will interpret the inclination of the facet to be perpendicular to the propagation direction of the common waveguide.
Claims 3 and 6-13 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on at least claim 2, thereby containing all the limitations of the claims on which they depend. The examiner notes that claim 6 has the same issues as set forth above – it is unclear how the coupler of claim 2 can combine light from the first and second waveguides when light only travels through the second waveguide to detector 120, it does not reflect back through that waveguide to be combined with light from the first waveguide.
Regarding claim 14, lines 6-7 of the claim state that the optical coupler “combines the first optical signal and the second optical signal into a common optical path.” However, it is unclear how the coupler will combine the first and second optical signal into a common optical path given the best understanding of how the embodiment of Figure 1, the embodiment that appears to best correspond to the claimed invention, functions.
In Figure 1, the optical coupler 115 combines the first waveguide 110 and the second waveguide 117 into a common waveguide 122. However, when combining the waveguides, the coupler only transmits light from light source 105 through the first waveguide to the common waveguide, and it transmits returned light from the beam splitter and the sample to the second waveguide for detection at detector 120. A detector would only be able to detect the light that passes through the second waveguide; it would not be able to reflect light from the second waveguide so that it can be combined with light from the first waveguide to be a combined signal as claimed.
As a result, while the second waveguide can transmit a second optical signal, the second waveguide only will transmit the second optical signal from the coupler to the detector. There is no mechanism for the second waveguide to transmit light to the couplers in order to combine the first and second optical signals into the common optical path. It can combine the first and second waveguides into a common optical path, but not the optical signals. Therefore, the claim is rejected as indefinite, as it is unclear how the optical coupler can combine the first and second optical signals as claimed. For purposes of examination, the examiner will interpret the limitation as though the coupler combines the first and second waveguides into a common optical path.
Further regarding claim 14, lines 8-11 of the claim state that the beam splitter is configured to “partially reflect combined optical signals to form a local oscillator beam directed into the second waveguide; and partially transmit combined optical signals toward a sample external to the chip”. However, it is unclear how the beam splitter is capable of partially reflecting “combined optical signals” and partially transmitting “combined optical signals” given how the interferometer claimed works in view of the specification. The claim appears to be drawn to the embodiment of Figure 1 given the claiming of the common waveguide disposed on the chip. The interferometer operates by emitting light 1 from a light source 105 into a first waveguide 110 which is then combined at y-coupler 115 into a common waveguide 122. This light, which is now indicated by arrow 2, passes to the facet beam splitter, where part of it is reflected as per arrow 3 and part of it is transmitted as per arrow 5. The reflected light from the beam splitter and the sample (arrow 6) are then passed through the common waveguide into the second waveguide 117 as indicated by arrow 4 and detected by detector 120. This would show that only input light from the first waveguide is partially reflected and partially transmitted by the beamsplitter, not combined light as claimed.
Even though the specification states, in paragraph 0076, that the Y-coupler “may be configured to couple light coming from . . . the second waveguide 117 into the common waveguide 122”, the examiner does not see anything in the embodiment shown in Fig. 1 that would allow for light to be coupled from the second waveguide into the common waveguide to be common light as claimed. The only element at the end of the second waveguide is detector 120. A detector would only be able to detect the light that passes through the second waveguide; it would not be able to reflect light from the second waveguide so that it can be combined with light from the first waveguide to be a combined signal as claimed.
As a result, the claim is rejected as indefinite, as it is not clear how the facet beam splitter is able to partially reflect and partially transmit combined optical signals as claimed, given the examiner’s best understanding of the invention and the embodiment shown in Fig. 1. For purposes of examination, the examiner will interpret the beam splitter to partially reflect and partially transmit only input light from the light source, not combined light.
Further regarding claim 14, in lines 13-16, the claim sets forth a sample lens that, in part, focuses the transmitted optical signals onto the sample. However, as shown in Figure 1, the embodiment in the specification that appears to be represented by claim 15, the light that is emitted from the facet beam splitter 104 is collimated by a single lens 126 before reaching the sample 124, and the lens takes light returned from the sample and focuses it onto beam splitter 104 (see paragraph 0080). As a result, it is unclear how a single lens 126 is capable of both focusing the transmitted optical signals onto the sample and focusing the light returned from the sample onto the beam splitter, particularly when it is shown that lens 126 provides collimated light to the sample. Clarification is required. For purposes of examination, the examiner will interpret the claim as though the sample lens collimates light onto the sample as disclosed by the instant specification.
Claims 15-17 are rejected by virtue of its dependence on claim 15, thereby containing all the limitations of the claim on which it depends.
Further regarding claim 17, even with the interpretation of the limitation of claim 15 above, the examiner notes that it is contradictory for claim 18 to state that the sample lens collimates the transmitted optical signals before incidence on the sample when claim 15 states that the sample lens focuses the transmitted optical signals onto the sample; without the additional interpretation, this fact would make claim 18 unclear.
Regarding claim 18, lines 10-14 of the claim state that the beam splitter is configured to “partially reflect combined optical signals to form a local oscillator beam directed into the second waveguide; and partially transmit combined optical signals toward a sample external to the chip”. However, it is unclear how the beam splitter is capable of partially reflecting “combined optical signals” and partially transmitting “combined optical signals” given how the interferometer claimed works in view of the specification. The claim appears to be drawn to the embodiment of Figure 1 given the claiming of the common waveguide disposed on the chip. The interferometer operates by emitting light 1 from a light source 105 into a first waveguide 110 which is then combined at y-coupler 115 into a common waveguide 122. This light, which is now indicated by arrow 2, passes to the facet beam splitter, where part of it is reflected as per arrow 3 and part of it is transmitted as per arrow 5. The reflected light from the beam splitter and the sample (arrow 6) are then passed through the common waveguide into the second waveguide 117 as indicated by arrow 4 and detected by detector 120. This would show that only input light from the first waveguide is partially reflected and partially transmitted by the beamsplitter, not combined light as claimed.
Even though the specification states, in paragraph 0076, that the Y-coupler “may be configured to couple light coming from . . . the second waveguide 117 into the common waveguide 122”, the examiner does not see anything in the embodiment shown in Fig. 1 that would allow for light to be coupled from the second waveguide into the common waveguide to be common light as claimed. The only element at the end of the second waveguide is detector 120. A detector would only be able to detect the light that passes through the second waveguide; it would not be able to reflect light from the second waveguide so that it can be combined with light from the first waveguide to be a combined signal as claimed.
As a result, the claim is rejected as indefinite, as it is not clear how the facet beam splitter is able to partially reflect and partially transmit combined optical signals as claimed, given the examiner’s best understanding of the invention and the embodiment shown in Fig. 1. For purposes of examination, the examiner will interpret the beam splitter to partially reflect and partially transmit only input light from the light source, not combined light.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 19, thereby containing all the limitations of the claim on which they depend.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 6, 8, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
As for claim 6, the claim depends on claim 2, and recites the limitation of a coupler configured to combine light from the first and second waveguides. However, claim 2 already comprises an on-chip coupler that combines the first and second waveguide into a common waveguide disposed on the chip, and the coupler inherently combines the optical signal (or light) in the first and second waveguides into a combined optical signal as a result of the fact that the beam splitter in claim 2 partially reflects “combined optical signals”. As a result, claim 6 fails to further limit the subject matter of the claim on which it depends, as claim 6 repeats limitations already found in the claim on which it depends.
As for claim 8, the claim depends on claim 6, which depends on claim 2, and recites the limitation of a common waveguide coupled to the coupler and disposed on the chip. However, claim 2 already comprises a common waveguide that is coupled to the coupler as a result of the on-chip coupler of claim 2 combining the first and second waveguides into a common waveguide. As a result, claim 8 fails to further limit the subject matter of the claim on which it depends, as claim 8 repeats limitation already found in claim 2.
As for claim 17, the claim depends on claim 15, and states that the sample lens collimates the transmitted optical signals before incidence on the sample. Notwithstanding the 35 USC 112(b) rejection made above, stating that the sample lens collimates the transmitted optical signals before incidence on the sample does not further limit claim 15, which states that the lens focuses the transmitted optical signals onto the sample. Stating that light that has been focused onto the sample is also collimated by the same lens would not serve further limit the claim on which it depends, as it would appear to broaden the claim from focused light to collimated light.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 2-8 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over van Leeuwen et al (2019/0003820) in view of Cattoen et al (2013/0128278), as best understood by the examiner.
Regarding claim 2, van Leeuwen (Figs. 4 and 5b) discloses an optical device for heterodyne interferometry comprising a chip 400; a first waveguide 304 disposed on the chip for transmitting a first optical signal 506; a second waveguide 406 disposed on the chip for transmitting a second optical signal 512; and an on-chip optical coupler 302 configured to combine the first waveguide and the second waveguide into a common waveguide 308 disposed on the chip (for the above, see paragraphs 0084-0090, which describes the optics disclosed herein with regards to Fig. 4), and a facet 410 of the common waveguide that emits light from the chip towards a sample 124 (see Fig. 3 for instance) that is external to the chip.
Van Leeuwen, however, fails to disclose a beam splitter formed as a facet of the common waveguide and configured to partially reflect combined optical signals to form a local oscillator beam directed into the second waveguide; and partially transmit combined optical signals toward the sample.
Cattoen, in a heterodyne common path interferometer (Fig. 1), discloses, at the end of common waveguide 13, an extremity 131 that forms a fiber-air interface that acts like a beam splitter to partially reflect an optical signal to form a reference or local oscillator beam directed through the common waveguide into a second waveguide (notated as element 14 in Fig. 2), and partially transmit the optical signal towards a sample 2 external to the interferometer (see paragraph 0010).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the exit facet 410 of van Leeuwen with a facet including a beam splitter as taught by Cattoen, the motivation being to simplify construction of the interferometer by replacing the external reference reflector 208 of van Leeuwen with the facet beam splitter of Cattoen, thereby maintaining operation as a common path interferometer while reducing cost with fewer required optical elements.
As for claim 3, when the facet beam splitter of Cattoen replaces the facet 410 of van Leeuwen to be a beam splitter at the facet of common waveguide 308, this would mean that the beam splitter is arranged on the chip 400.
As for claim 4, in the best understanding of the examiner, the first waveguide 304 and the second waveguide 406 physically combine at the on-chip coupler 302.
As for claim 5, in the best understanding of the examiner, the facet beam splitter of the combination of van Leeuwen and Cattoen is inclined perpendicularly relative to the propagation direction of the common waveguide (see Figs. 1a and 1b of Cattoen).
As for claim 6, in the best understanding of the examiner, van Leeuwen discloses coupler 302 for combining the first and second waveguides.
As for claim 7, van Leeuwen discloses that the coupler is a Y-branch coupler (see paragraph 0084, for instance).
As for claim 8, van Leeuwen discloses a common waveguide 308 coupled to the coupler 302 and disposed on the chip (see Fig. 5B for instance).
Regarding claim 14, van Leeuwen (Figs. 4 and 5b) discloses an optical device for heterodyne interferometry comprising a chip 400; a first waveguide 304 disposed on the chip for transmitting a first optical signal 506; a second waveguide 406 disposed on the chip for transmitting a second optical signal 512; an optical coupler 302 disposed on the chip configured to combine the first waveguide and the second waveguide into a common optical path 308 (for the above, see paragraphs 0084-0090, which describes the optics disclosed herein with regards to Fig. 4), and a facet 410 of the common optical path that emits light from the chip towards a sample 124 (see Fig. 3 for instance) that is external to the chip; and a sample lens 206-1, 206-2 (see Fig. 3) arranged external to the chip, interposing the optical device and the sample (see Fig. 3), and configured to direct the transmitted optical signals onto the sample and focus the light backscattered from the sample onto the facet (see paragraphs 0062 and 0065).
Van Leeuwen, however, fails to disclose a beam splitter formed as the facet of the common waveguide and configured to partially reflect combined optical signals to form a local oscillator beam directed into the second waveguide; and partially transmit combined optical signals toward the sample.
Cattoen, in a heterodyne common path interferometer (Fig. 1), discloses, at the end of common waveguide 13, an extremity 131 that forms a fiber-air interface that acts like a beam splitter to partially reflect an optical signal to form a reference or local oscillator beam directed through the common waveguide into a second waveguide (notated as element 14 in Fig. 2), and partially transmit the optical signal towards a sample 2 external to the interferometer (see paragraph 0010).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the exit facet 410 of van Leeuwen with a facet including a beam splitter as taught by Cattoen, the motivation being to simplify construction of the interferometer by replacing the external reference reflector 208 of van Leeuwen with the facet beam splitter of Cattoen, thereby maintaining operation as a common path interferometer while reducing cost with fewer required optical elements.
As for claim 15, van Leeuwen discloses the sample lens comprises multiple optical elements 206-1, 206-2 (see Fig. 3) forming a compound lens system.
As for claim 16, van Leeuwen discloses that the sample is spaced apart from the chip by a fixed distance (see Fig. 3, showing the sample location spaced apart from the chip). The examiner notes that while van Leeuwen discloses a translation stage, the sample and the chip are a fixed distance apart during measurement, as the adjustment only takes place between scans (see paragraph 0052).
As for claim 17, while van Leeuwen fails to disclose that the sample lens collimates the transmitted optical signals before incidence on the sample, the examiner takes Official notice as to the well known practice of collimating light prior to having that light impinge on a sample in an optical measurement, and it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the lens of van Leeuwen with a collimating lens, the motivation being to provide light of uniform intensity to a larger portion of the sample simultaneously for quicker imaging of larger portions of that sample.
Regarding claim 18, van Leeuwen (Figs. 4 and 5b) discloses an optical measurement system for heterodyne interferometry comprising a chip 400; a first waveguide 304 disposed on the chip for transmitting a first optical signal 506; a second waveguide 406 disposed on the chip for transmitting a second optical signal 512; and an on-chip optical coupler 302 configured to combine the first waveguide and the second waveguide into a common waveguide 308 disposed on the chip (for the above, see paragraphs 0084-0090, which describes the optics disclosed herein with regards to Fig. 4), a facet 410 of the common waveguide that emits light from the chip towards a sample 124 (see Fig. 3 for instance) that is external to the chip, and an analysis device (processor 104, see Fig. 3) connected to the optical device and configured to process an interference signal detected from the second waveguide (see paragraphs 0048 and 0075).
Van Leeuwen, however, fails to disclose a beam splitter formed as a facet of the common waveguide and configured to partially reflect combined optical signals to form a local oscillator beam directed into the second waveguide; and partially transmit combined optical signals toward the sample.
Cattoen, in a heterodyne common path interferometer (Fig. 1), discloses, at the end of common waveguide 13, an extremity 131 that forms a fiber-air interface that acts like a beam splitter to partially reflect an optical signal to form a reference or local oscillator beam directed through the common waveguide into a second waveguide (notated as element 14 in Fig. 2), and partially transmit the optical signal towards a sample 2 external to the interferometer (see paragraph 0010).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the exit facet 410 of van Leeuwen with a facet including a beam splitter as taught by Cattoen, the motivation being to simplify construction of the interferometer by replacing the external reference reflector 208 of van Leeuwen with the facet beam splitter of Cattoen, thereby maintaining operation as a common path interferometer while reducing cost with fewer required optical elements.
As for claim 19, van Leeuwen discloses that the analysis device comprises a processor that extracts amplitude and phase information from the interference signal (inherent to any processing of an interference signal; see also paragraphs 0048 and 0075)
As for claim 20, van Leeuwen discloses that the analysis device is external to the chip (see Fig. 3).
Claims 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over van Leeuwen et al (2019/0003820) in view of Cattoen et al (2013/0128278) and in further view of Pechstedt et al (2002/0015155), as best understood by the examiner.
As for claims 9 and 10, the combination of van Leeuwen and Cattoen disclose the claimed invention as set forth above regarding claim 2. Van Leeuwen also discloses a detector 504 optically coupled to the second waveguide 406 (see Fig. 5B), but fails to disclose that the photodetector is physically coupled to the second waveguide and is arranged on the chip (claim 10).
Pechstedt discloses an interferometer that is integrated on a silicon-on-insulator chip 12A, 12B (see Fig. 4 and paragraph 0046). Pechstedt discloses detectors 15 that are coupled to waveguides 4 (see Fig. 4), with the detectors being arranged on the chip 12B (see paragraph 0047).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to couple the detector in van Leeuwen and Cattoen to the second waveguide and arrange that photodetector on the chip as taught by Pechstedt, the motivation being that coupling the photodetector to both the waveguide and the chip will make the device more compact and is preferred to having the detector off the chip (see paragraph 0047 of Pechstedt). Additionally, it has been held that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in van Leeuwen and Catton would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice. In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965).
As for claims 11 and 12, the combination of van Leeuwen and Cattoen disclose the claimed invention as set forth above regarding claim 2. Van Leeuwen also discloses a light source 502 optically coupled to the first waveguide 304 (see Fig. 5B), but fails to disclose that the light source is physically coupled to the first waveguide and is arranged on the chip (claim 12).
Pechstedt discloses an interferometer that is integrated on a silicon-on-insulator chip 12A, 12B (see Fig. 4 and paragraph 0046). Pechstedt discloses light source 10 that is coupled to waveguide 4 (see Fig. 4), with the light source being arranged on the chip 12B (see paragraph 0047).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to couple the light source in van Leeuwen and Cattoen to the first waveguide and arrange that light source on the chip as taught by Pechstedt, the motivation being that coupling the light source to both the waveguide and the chip will make the device more compact and is preferred to having the light source off the chip (see paragraph 0047 of Pechstedt). Additionally, it has been held that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in van Leeuwen and Catton would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice. In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965).
As for claim 13, van Leeuwen discloses that the light source generates light with time-varying wavelength (the light source is swept source as in paragraph 0093).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2018/0045501 to Elmaanaoui discloses a common path interferometer with a partial reflector 105 in the probe head to separate a measurement arm 103 from a reference arm 102 (see Fig. 1).
US 2012/0195544 to Shen et al. discloses an optical interferometer with waveguides and other optical elements on a chip 401A (see Fig. 4A).
US 2007/0008545 to Feldchtein et al. discloses a common path interferometer with a reference reflector 118 that is at the distal end of a fiber 130 that acts as a beam splitter for reference and sample light (see Fig. 1).
“Integrated-Optic Heterodyne Interferometer for Displacement Measurement” by Toda et al. discloses an on chip heterodyne interferometer (see Fig. 2) for measuring displacement of a sample.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael A. Lyons whose telephone number is (571)272-2420. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday.
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.
/Michael A Lyons/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877 July 15, 2026
Prosecution Insights