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: Paras. [0005-0007,0040] each recite the phrase “total internal refraction”. The Examiner assumes that each instance of this phrase should actually recite --total internal reflection--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-3, 11-12, 16, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1: On Line 4, the Examiner assumes that “total internal refraction (TIR)” should actually be --total internal reflection (TIR)--.
Claim 1: The Examiner assumes that Lines 1-2 should read --wherein the lens coupler is a hemisphere lens [[is]] in contact with the optical device substrate, [[is]] positioned--.
Claim 2: On Line 3, the Examiner assumes that “the total loss is” should actually be --the total optical loss is--.
Claim 3: On Line 3, the Examiner assumes that “a second receiver is measuring” should actually be --a second receiver [[is]] measuring--.
Claim 12: On Line 1, the Examiner assumes that “into a input grating coupler” should actually be --into [[a]] an input grating coupler--.
Claim 12: On Line 4, the Examiner assumes that “total internal refraction (TIR)” should actually be --total internal reflection (TIR)--.
Claim 16: On Line 4, the Examiner assumes that “total internal refraction (TIR)” should actually be --total internal reflection (TIR)--.
Claim 16: On Line 5, the Examiner assumes that “into a output grating coupler” should actually be --into [[a]] an output grating coupler--.
Claim 20: The Examiner assumes that Lines 1-2 should read --wherein the lens coupler is a hemisphere lens [[is]] in contact with the optical device substrate, [[is]] positioned--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 2 is 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.
Applicant recites two variables- αbulk and αsurf- that are both defined as “a total light loss caused by the optical substrate”. It is unclear why Applicant is using two different variables for the same parameter. Therefore, for purposes of examination, the Examiner assumes that αsurf should be defined as “a total light loss caused by the grating”.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naß et al. (US 2022/0082840), hereinafter Naß, in view of Uematsu et al. (US 2006/0019374), hereinafter Uematsu.
Claim 1: Naß discloses a method of optical device metrology (using the device of Fig. 11) comprising:
projecting a light beam (1) of a first intensity to a lens coupler (2) disposed on a first surface of an optical device substrate (3) (“Light 1 is fed into the glass article 3 via a prism 2” [0167]), the lens coupler (2) in-coupling the light beam (1) into the optical device substrate (3) to undergo total internal reflection (TIR) (“The light is propagating through the inside of glass article based on total internal reflection at the main surfaces 4 and 5 of the article 3” [0167]),
measuring a plurality of intensities of the light beam (1) out-coupled at a plurality of contact points (7c, 7d) using a receiver (“Local maxima of light intensity are detected at the respective lateral path positions of the detecting fiber 7c, 7d” [0178]); and
determining a total optical loss of the optical device substrate by comparing the plurality of intensities at the contact points and the first intensity of the light beam (“the detected intensity decreases with increasing lateral position of the detecting fiber. This is due to optical loss α upon propagation of the light through the glass article and can be used for determining the optical loss α by simply calculating the linear slope of the curve” [0168]).
Naß is silent with respect to the optical device substrate comprising a grating.
Uematsu, however, in the same field of endeavor of optical waveguide propagation, discloses a method of optical device metrology (using the device of Fig. 3) comprising:
projecting a light beam (from 21) of a first intensity to an input grating coupler (11a) disposed on a first surface of an optical device substrate (10), the input grating coupler (11a) in-coupling the light beam into the optical device substrate (10) to undergo total internal reflection (TIR) [0020], the optical device substrate (10) comprising a grating (11a,11b) having a plurality of grating lines (inherent) [0016] such that light is out-coupled by the grating (11a,11b) at a plurality of contact points (evident from figure).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Naß’ optical device substrate with a grating for the purpose of improving the coupling of the light beam within the optical device substrate.
Claim 2: Naß does not explicitly disclose the equation used to determine the total optical loss.
However, Naß does disclose that “the detected intensity decreases with increasing lateral position of the detecting fiber. This is due to optical loss α upon propagation of the light through the glass article and can be used for determining the optical loss α by simply calculating the linear slope of the curve” [0168]. Naß further discloses wherein the logarithmic change in detected intensity is proportional to the distance of the out-coupled light beam that is measured (“Since the raw data follows an exponential decay, a linear decaying behavior is obtained by using the natural logarithm as can be seen in FIG. 2” [0147]).
Therefore, it is evident that the total optical loss would be given by
log
I
N
=
log
I
0
-
(
α
b
u
l
k
*
X
0
+
α
s
u
r
f
)
*
N
.
Claim 3: Naß further discloses wherein the receiver (7a-7d) comprises a first receiver (7c,7d) measuring the plurality of intensities of the light beam out-coupled by the grating at the plurality of contact points and a second receiver (7a) measuring the plurality of intensities of the light beam out-coupled from the optical device substrate (3) on a second surface (bottom) of the optical device substrate (3) (evident from Fig. 11) [0178].
Claim 8: Naß discloses the receiver (7c,7d) being positioned above the optical device substrate (3) (evident from Fig. 11), but does not explicitly disclose the receiver being a camera.
However, Naß does disclose image creation in the optical device substrate (“If the optical losses differ strongly dependent on the propagation angle of the light inside the glass, this results in a heterogeneous brightness distribution. For example, the image may be very bright in the center and very dark towards the edges or vice versa” [0027]).
Therefore, it is evident that the receiver is a camera in order to capture the created images.
Claim 9: Naß further discloses wherein the receiver is a detector attached to a fiber bundle (“ Local maxima of light intensity are detected at the respective lateral path positions of the detecting fiber 7c, 7d” [0178]).
Claim 10: Naß further discloses wherein the first receiver (7c,7d) is a first power sensor disposed on a first mask with an opening disposed on a first translation stage facing the first surface (top) of the optical device substrate (3) and the second receiver (7a) is a second power sensor disposed on a second mask with an opening disposed on a second translation stage facing the second surface (bottom) of the optical device substrate (3) (evident since “[t]he light intensity is recorded at different positions by a detecting fiber 7a, 7b, 7c that is moved parallel to one of the two main surfaces (along main surface 4 in FIG. 1)” [0167]).
Claims 4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naß, in view of Uematsu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Moll et al. (US 2010/0220318), hereinafter Moll.
Claim 4: Naß further discloses wherein the lens coupler (2) is a prism disposed on the first surface of the optical device substrate (3) (“Light 1 is fed into the glass article 3 via a prism 2” [0167]), but does not explicitly disclose a coupling head disposed on a second surface of the optical device substrate.
Moll, however, in the same field of endeavor of optical sensing with planar waveguides, provides a teaching (Fig. 3) of using a lens coupler (310) to couple a light beam with a waveguide (305) [0030],
wherein a coupling head (Flowcell Lid) to hold the lens coupler (310) to the waveguide (305) is disposed on an opposite surface (evident from figure).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Naß’ method by disposing a coupling head opposite the prism for the purpose of ensuring stability of the prism for steady in-coupling of the light beam.
Claim 11: Naß is silent with respect to the lens coupler being a hemisphere lens.
Moll, however, in the same field of endeavor of optical sensing with planar waveguides, discloses wherein a lens coupler (310) is a hemisphere lens in contact with an optical device substrate (305), positioned at an angle θC to cause light to be in-coupled in TIR (evident from Fig. 3 of Moll).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Naß’ lens coupler to be a hemisphere lens for the purpose of providing a large, stable surface for TIR of an incoming beam.
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naß, in view of Uematsu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Terada et al. (CN 1761901), hereinafter Terada.
Claim 5: Naß is silent with respect to the lens coupler being a bi-convex lens.
Terada, however, in the same field of endeavor of optical waveguide propagation, discloses a device (Fig. 5A) comprising a lens coupler (1) [0090],
wherein the lens coupler (1) is a bi-convex lens with a first face (bottom) with a first radius of curvature (r1) and second face (top) with a second radius of curvature (r2 < r1) (evident from figure).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Naß’ lens coupler to be a bi-convex lens for the purpose of forming a light beam of high NA and being easy to separate from the optical device substrate when needed (Terada, Abstract).
Claim 6: Naß, in view of Terada, does not explicitly disclose wherein the second face of the bi-convex lens is coated in an anti-reflective coating.
However, the Examiner takes Official notice that, without an anti-reflective coating on the top surface, part of the light beam from the optical device substrate may return to the optical device substrate.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Naß’ bi-convex lens by coating the second face in an anti-reflective coating for the purpose of maximizing the signal-to-noise ratio at the receiver.
Claim 7: Naß is silent with respect to a power sensor disposed above the bi-convex lens.
Uematsu, however, discloses sensing the power of the projected light beam (emitted by 21) [0022]. Uematsu is thus using a power sensor to capture and measure any portion of light not in-coupled to the optical device substrate.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Naß’ method by disposing a power sensor above the bi-convex lens for the purpose of determining the difference between the emitted power and the received power to accurately calculate optical loss (Uematsu [0022]).
The method of claim 6, wherein a power sensor is disposed above the bi-convex lens in a position to capture and measure any portion of light not in-coupled to the optical device substrate.
Claims 12, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uematsu, in view of Moll.
Claim 12: Uematsu discloses a method of optical device metrology (using the device of Fig. 3) comprising:
projecting a light beam (from 21) at a first power into an input grating coupler (11a) located on a first portion of an optical device substrate (10), the input grating coupler (11a) in-coupling the light beam into the optical device substrate (10) to undergo total internal reflection (TIR) [0020];
out-coupling the light beam in a second portion of the optical device substrate (10) with a grating coupler (11b) and capturing the light beam with a receiver (22) [0022];
recording a second power with the receiver [0022]; and
determining a light intensity difference by comparing the first power and the second power [0022].
Uematsu discloses a grating coupler (11b) for out-coupling the light beam to the receiver (22) [0022], but is silent with respect to a lens coupler.
Moll, however, in the same field of endeavor of optical sensing with planar waveguides, provides a teaching (Fig. 3) of using a lens coupler (310) to couple a light beam with a waveguide (305) [0030].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Uematsu’s method by using a lens coupler to out-couple the light beam to the receiver for the purpose of providing a consistent amount of refraction over time.
Uematsu discloses comparing the first power and the second power (“detecting the difference between the light intensities emitted by the light source 21 and received by the photo detector 22” [0022]), but does not explicitly disclose determining an efficiency of the input grating coupler.
However, a highly-efficient coupling element would implicitly yield a low drop in light power. Conversely, a large difference between the first and second powers indicates that the coupling element has a very low efficiency.
Therefore, it is evident that, by comparing the first power to the second power, Uematsu is determining an efficiency of the input grating coupler.
Claim 16: Uematsu discloses a method of optical device metrology (using the device of Fig. 3) comprising:
projecting a light beam (from 21) at a first power into a grating coupler (11a) located on a first portion of an optical device substrate (10), the grating coupler (11a) in-coupling the light beam into the optical device substrate (10) to undergo total internal reflection (TIR) [0020];
out-coupling the light beam using an output grating coupler (11b) and capturing the light beam with a receiver (22) [0022];
recording a second power with the receiver (22) [0022]; and
determining a light intensity difference by comparing the second power and the first power [0022].
Uematsu discloses a grating coupler (11a) for in-coupling the light beam to under TIR [0020], but is silent with respect to a lens coupler.
Moll, however, in the same field of endeavor of optical sensing with planar waveguides, discloses a device (Fig. 3) comprising a lens coupler (310) for in-coupling a light beam (315) into a waveguide (305) to undergo TIR [0030].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Uematsu’s method by using a lens coupler to in-couple the light beam into the optical device substrate for the purpose of providing a consistent amount of refraction over time.
Uematsu discloses comparing the first power and the second power (“detecting the difference between the light intensities emitted by the light source 21 and received by the photo detector 22” [0022]), but does not explicitly disclose determining an efficiency of the input grating coupler.
However, a highly-efficient coupling element would implicitly yield a low drop in light power. Conversely, a large difference between the first and second powers indicates that the coupling element has a very low efficiency.
Therefore, it is evident that, by comparing the first power to the second power, Uematsu is determining an efficiency of the input grating coupler.
Claim 20: Uematsu, in view of Moll, further discloses wherein the lens coupler (310) is a hemisphere lens in contact with the optical device substrate (305), positioned at an angle θC to cause light to be in-coupled in TIR (evident from Fig. 3 of Moll).
Claims 13 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uematsu, in view of Moll as applied to claims 12 and 16 above, and further in view of Naß.
Claims 13,17: Uematsu is silent with respect to the lens coupler being a prism.
Naß, however, in the same field of endeavor of optical waveguide propagation, discloses a device (Fig. 1) comprising a lens coupler (2) to couple a light beam (1) with an optical device substrate (3),
wherein the lens coupler is a prism (2) (“Light 1 is fed into the glass article 3 via a prism 2” [0167]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Uematsu’s lens coupler to be a prism for the purpose of creating a stable coupler that allows one to set the propagation angle within an optical device substrate (Naß [0167]).
Claims 14-15 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uematsu, in view of Moll as applied to claims 12 and 16 above, and further in view of Terada.
Claims 14,18: Uematsu is silent with respect to the lens coupler being a bi-convex lens.
Terada, however, in the same field of endeavor of optical waveguide propagation, discloses a device (Fig. 5A) comprising a lens coupler (1) [0090],
wherein the lens coupler (1) is a bi-convex lens with a first face (bottom) with a first radius of curvature (r1) and second face (top) with a second radius of curvature (r2 < r1) (evident from figure).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Uematsu’s lens coupler to be a bi-convex lens for the purpose of forming a light beam of high NA and being easy to separate from the optical device substrate when needed (Terada, Abstract).
Claim 15: Uematsu, in view of Terada, does not explicitly disclose wherein the second face of the bi-convex lens is coated in an anti-reflective coating.
However, the Examiner takes Official notice that, without an anti-reflective coating on the top surface, part of the light beam from the optical device substrate may return to the optical device substrate.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Uematsu’s bi-convex lens by coating the second face in an anti-reflective coating for the purpose of maximizing the signal-to-noise ratio at the receiver.
Claim 19: Uematsu, in view of Terada, does not explicitly disclose wherein the second face of the bi-convex lens is coated in an anti-reflective coating.
However, the Examiner takes Official notice that, without an anti-reflective coating on the top surface, part of the light beam from a light projection source may return towards the light projection source instead of coupling into the optical device substrate.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Uematsu’s bi-convex lens by coating the second face in an anti-reflective coating for the purpose of maximizing the signal that is coupled into the optical device substrate to thus maximize the signal-to-noise ratio at the receiver.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to HINA F AYUB whose telephone number is (571)270-3171. The Examiner can normally be reached on 9am-5pm ET Mon-Fri.
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, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached on 571-272-2287. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Hina F Ayub/
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2877
