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 .
Detailed Action.
Applicant’s election with traverse of species I (Fig. 4, claims 1, 2, 8-14) in response/amendment submitted is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the cited reference claim 1 as a generic claims does not teach cited claimed invention with comparing the limitations of the claimed inventions with the corresponding features of Tsuzuki et al. This is not found persuasive as stated below at least claim is is being taught by the cited prior art refence(s). The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
The applicant is kindly asked to submitted any prior art documents in the information Disclosure Statement(s), if any, to be considered and made of record.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
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 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.
Claim 1-2 and 9-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Tsuzuki”; Ken et al. US 20170336696 A1, .
Regarding claim 1, Tsuzuki teaches an ion-doped optical waveguide structure (see figs. 1-10 and summary), comprising:
an optical waveguide (shown in at least figs. 3-4); a doped region (shown in at least figs. 3, parag. 0058), comprising
a P-type doped region and an N-type doped region arranged respectively on both sides of the optical waveguide (see at least fig. 4 and parag. 0058), while the P-type doped region and the N-type doped region are isolated from each other (see at least fig. 4 with the p and n doped regions at least vs right of the waveguide); a plurality of electrodes (shown in at least figs. 1-3), the electrodes are arranged on the P-type doped region and the N-type doped region (see at least fig. 4 and parag. 0058); and an electrical signal adjusting circuit (shown in at least figs. 3), comprising a plurality of electrical input terminals and at least one electrical output terminal (shown in at least figs. 3, parag. 0040), wherein each of the electrical input terminals inputs a corresponding electrical signal (shown in at least figs. 3, parag. 0040), and the electrical output terminal outputs an electrical signal (shown in at least figs. 3, parag. 0040), so as to form a closed circuit between the electrical input terminals and the electrical output terminal (shown in at least figs. 3); the electrical input terminals and the electrical output terminal are connected respectively to the electrodes correspondingly (shown in at least figs. 3, parag. 0040); and the electrical signal adjusting circuit is configured to adjust a magnitude of the electrical signal applied to the electrodes (see at least parag. 0053, 0040, 0062…), so as to achieve both functions of optical phase modulation and optical intensity attenuation (see table 1) in the same ion-doped optical waveguide structure (see in at least figs. 3-4 0039).
However, Tsuzuki does not explicitly state that the above adjusting of the electrical signal as is adjusting “amplitude” of the electrical signal, nonetheless, such adjusting/changing of the electrical signal would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan skilled in the art before effective date of the invention for the purpose of phase shift and/or intensity change would necessarily involves changing the magnitude of the signal in or der to attenuate and phase modulation the electrical signal.
The statements advanced in rejection of claim 1, above, as to the applicability and disclosure of the combined references and the motivation are incorporated herein in rejection of the following claims as follows:
2. (Original) The ion-doped optical waveguide structure according to claim 1, wherein the electrodes are arranged as four: a first electrode, a second electrode, a third electrode, and a fourth electrode respectively; the first electrode and the second electrode are arranged at both ends of the P-type doped region, and the third electrode and the fourth electrode are arranged at both ends of the N-type doped region; the electrical input terminals are arranged as two: a first electrical input terminal and a second electrical input terminal respectively; the electrical output terminals are arranged as two: a first electrical output terminal and a second electrical output terminal respectively; the first electrical input terminal is connected to the first electrode, the second electrical input terminal is connected to the third electrode, the first electrical output terminal is connected to the second electrode, and the second electrical output terminal is connected to the fourth electrode; and the electrical signal adjusting circuit is configured to adjust the electrical signal being input, until a voltage input by the first electrical input terminal is as same as or different from a voltage input by the second electrical input terminal (shown in at least fig. 2, with two input adjusting circuits at top and bottom input terminals around the 4 electrodes with two other corresponding output terminals).
With regard to claim 9, Tsuzuki is silent on wherein the P-type doped region and/or the N-type doped region has a same concentration for an impurity doping, or has a plurality of concentrations for different impurity doping, nonetheless, such limitation is not germane to the invention as such impurity is extremely convention in the art and one or ordinary skill in the art could easily use for optical intensity change.
10. (Original) The ion-doped optical waveguide structure according to claim 1, wherein the electrical signal is a fixed voltage or an adjustable voltage; and a relative difference between input voltages at each of the electrical input terminals is adjusted by the electrical signal adjusting circuit (see figs. 1-4 and at least par. 0040, 0053…).
With regard to claim 11, Tsuzuki is silent on wherein according to a "time division multiplexing" method, the electrical signal adjusting circuit adjusts a voltage applied to the electrodes alternately at different time frames, thus enabling the ion-doped optical waveguide to act as both an optical phase shifter and a variable optical attenuator at a same time, nonetheless, such limitation is mere method step for using the equivalent claimed product for use in the art and the selection of any of these known equivalents and it would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art for such use for the above optical phase shifter and a variable optical attenuator.
12. (Original) An ion-doped optical waveguide array, comprising: a plurality of the ion-doped optical waveguides according toa plurality of the ion-doped optical waveguides according to claim 1, wherein the ion-doped optical waveguides are arranged in an order to form an array, and a doping type of the doped regions located on a same side of any adjacent two of the ion-doped optical waveguides is same or opposite (see at least figs. 3-5 and parag. 0058) .
13. (Original) A method of using the ion-doped optical waveguide according to claim 1, comprising: adjusting the magnitude of the electrical signal applied to the electrodes correspondingly by the electrical signal adjusting circuit, thereby enabling the ion-doped optical waveguide to act as an optical phase shifter and/or a variable optical attenuator (see at least parag. 0053, 0040, 0062…).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claim 8 and 14 allowable because the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious its respective limitations in combination with the rest of the limitations of the base claim.
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
Prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. In accordance with MPEP 707.05 the following references are pertinent in rejection of this application since they provide substantially the same information disclosure as this patent does. These references are:
US 20180039152 A1
US 20040047529 A1
US 20170336696 A1
US 20180239176 A1
US 20140248019 A1
US 20020097962 A1
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAVEH C KIANNI whose telephone number is (571)272-2417. The examiner can normally be reached on 9-19.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Thomas Hollweg can be reached on571-270-1739. 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.
/KAVEH C KIANNI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights