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 .
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.
DETAILED ACTION
This is an AIA application filed September 20, 2021.
The earliest effective filing date of this AIA application is seen as September 20, 2021, the actual filing date, there being no earlier priority applications.
The present application is also related to the applications giving rise to the following patent publication(s) (some redundancy may be present):
Office
Application
App. Date
Pub. #
Pub. Date
DE
102022116821
07/06/2022
DE 102022116821 A1
03/23/2023
CN
202210999878
08/19/2022
CN 115840269 A
03/24/2023
The claims filed May 1, 2026 are entered, currently outstanding, and subject to examination.
This action is in response to the filing of the same date.
The current status and history of the claims is summarized below:
Last Amendment/Response
Previously
Amended:
1, 18, and 23
1, 2, 6, 12, 14, 15, 18, & 20-23
Cancelled:
none
4, 8-11, & 24
Withdrawn:
none
none
Added:
none
none
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 12-23, and 25 are currently pending and outstanding.
Regarding the last reply:
Claims 1, 18, and 23 were amended.
No claims were cancelled.
No claims were withdrawn.
No claims were added.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 12-23, and 25 are currently outstanding and subject to examination.
This is a final action and is the fifth action on the merits.
Allowable subject matter is not indicated below.
Often, in the substance of the action below, formal matters are addressed first, claim rejections second, and any response to arguments third.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on May 1, 2026 has been entered.
Drawings
All the independent claims 1, 18, and 23 require "the first optical path, the second optical path, the third optical path, and the fourth optical path all extend through a same horizontal plane". Examiner does not see this in the specification as originally filed.
As such, the subject matter is considered new to the application.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Applicant should check the claims closely for all structures, steps, and relationships to ensure that they are present in the drawings.
The following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Claim(s)
Feature Not Shown
1, 18, and 23
"the first optical path, the second optical path, the third optical path, and the fourth optical path all extend through a same horizontal plane"
Applicant may have other claimed configurational and/or geometrical features that are not shown in the drawings. Examiner suggests that Applicant review its claims and drawings to ensure that all claimed features are shown. While examiner endeavors to ensure all issues in all actions are fully and completely addressed, examiner’s additional scrutiny of the present application may reveal other drawing objections. Applicant should note this well and make sure that this application conforms to the rules as to both form and substance.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Applicant must provide the same terminology/vocabulary/phrasing in the specification that is present in the claims. At least one term or phrase is missing from the specification present in the claim(s).
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o).
Correction is required as the following amendment(s)/text in the claims find(s) no antecedent in the specification.
Claim(s)
Antecedent Missing For
1, 18, and 23
"the first optical path, the second optical path, the third optical path, and the fourth optical path all extend through a same horizontal plane"
As set forth in MPEP § 608.01(o):
The meaning of every term used in any of the claims should be apparent from the descriptive portion of the specification with clear disclosure as to its import; and in mechanical cases, it should be identified in the descriptive portion of the specification by reference to the drawing, designating the part or parts therein to which the term applies. A term used in the claims may be given a special meaning in the description. See MPEP § 2111.01 and § 2173.05(a).
Usually the terminology of the original claims follows the nomenclature of the specification, but sometimes in amending the claims or in adding new claims, new terms are introduced that do not appear in the specification. The use of a confusing variety of terms for the same thing should not be permitted.
. . . While an applicant is not limited to the nomenclature used in the application as filed, he or she should make appropriate amendment of the specification whenever this nomenclature is departed from by amendment of the claims so as to have clear support or antecedent basis in the specification for the new terms appearing in the claims. This is necessary in order to insure [sic, ensure] certainty in construing the claims in the light of the specification, Ex parte Kotler, 1901 C.D. 62, 95 O.G. 2684 (Comm’r Pat. 1901). See 37 CFR 1.75 and MPEP §§ 608.01(i), § 1302.01.
Consequently, identity between terms and phrases in the specification and claims is preferred and is seen as mandatory to ensure “certainty in construing the claims in the light of the specification”.
Further, under 37 C.F.R. § 1.121(e) regarding disclosure consistency:
The disclosure must be amended, when required by the Office, to correct inaccuracies of description and definition, and to secure substantial correspondence between the claims, the remainder of the specification, and the drawings.
Examiner considers direct correspondence between the specification and the claims to be important with respect to determining the scope of the claims.
Examiner strongly urges Applicant to review its claims with a fine-toothed comb and scrutinize them for any discrepancies between claim language and language that is used in the written description/specification as originally filed. Applicant is responsible for what it drafts. Discrepancies may be interpreted to Applicant’s detriment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a/¶ 1)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 18, and 23 (and by dependency, remaining claims 2, 3, 5-7, 12-17, 19-23, and 25) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
All the independent claims 1, 18, and 23 require "the first optical path, the second optical path, the third optical path, and the fourth optical path all extend through a same horizontal plane". Examiner does not see this in the specification as originally filed.
As such, the subject matter is considered new to the application.
The specification as originally filed makes no mention of third or fourth dies nor is there disclosure of "wherein the third optical path is optically coupled with the first die" per claims 23 at the end.
For purposes of examination, the examiner considers "wherein the third optical path is optically coupled with the first die" to relate to the third die and not the first die so that the phrase is read as follows for examination purposes: "wherein the third optical path is optically coupled with the third die" as internally consistent with claim 23 and the first and second optical paths in conjunction with the first die.
No disclosure is seen in the specification as originally filed as to a die having couplings to multiple optical paths. As such, these elements in the claims are considered to be new matter.
Applicant did not address all objections and rejections in its last reply of May 1, 2026. Applicant is given notice that future informal replies will not be entered. 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(b).
Special Definitions for Claim Language - MPEP § 2111.01(IV)
No special definitions as defined by MPEP § 2111.01(IV) are seen as present in the specification regarding the language used in the claims. Consequently, the words and phrases of the claims are given their plain meaning. MPEP §§ 2173.01, 2173.05(a), and 2111.01.
If special definitions are present, Applicant should bring those to the attention of the examiner and the prosecution history with its next response in a manner both specific and particular. In doing so, there will be no mistake, confusion, and/or ambiguity as to what constitutes the special definition(s). Per above, such special definitions must conform to the requirements of MPEP § 2111.01(IV).
To date, Applicant has provided no indication of special definitions.
Claims 1-3, 6, 7, 12-16, 18-23, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20110007998 of Yamamoto et al. (Yamamoto) in view of legal precedent as set forth in MPEP § 2144.04(V)(B) regarding making parts integral and U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20050220437 of Kim et al. (Kim, previously cited).
With respect to claim 1, Yamamoto discloses an apparatus (Figs.4-6A, particularly Figs. 4 and 5, inter alia), comprising:
a glass substrate (first and second cores 22a and 22b; ¶ 38, "The first and second clad layers 21a and 21b may be made of any suitable film-shaped photopolymer that cures when exposed to UV ray, for example.” Such a photopolymer is considered to be an amorphous solid and, as such, glass) with a first side (top of 21a) and a second side opposite the first side (bottom of 21b);
a first optical path (Fig. 5, from LD1 to center point 41) that extends through the first side of the glass substrate (21a top leftward);
a second optical path (Fig. 5, from center point 42 to PD1 ) that extends through the first side of the glass substrate (21a top rightward); and
a first optical waveguide (the middle part of the core area generally indicated by 22a) within the glass substrate (21a/b) and completely surrounded by the single material of the glass substrate (per common practice, cladding surrounds the core in a fiber optic/waveguide system in order to prevent the light signal from escaping. Such cladding is seen as continuous per the analysis below.),
the first optical waveguide (22a) between the first optical path and the second optical path (per Fig. 5), and
the first optical waveguide (22a) having a first end (left side at/about 41) that is optically coupled with the first optical path (Fig. 5) and having a second end (right side at/about 42) opposite the first end that is optically coupled with the second optical path (Fig. 5).
Yamamoto as set forth above does not disclose:
the glass substrate comprising a single material continuous between the first side and the second side;
a third optical path that extends through the first side of the glass substrate;
a fourth optical path that extends through the first side of the glass substrate;
and a second optical waveguide within the glass substrate and completely surrounded by the single material of the glass substrate,
the second optical waveguide between the third optical path and the fourth optical path,
the second optical waveguide having a first end that is optically coupled with the third optical path and having a second end opposite the first end that is optically coupled with the fourth optical path,
wherein the second optical waveguide is vertically overlapping with the first optical waveguide along a vertical axis,
wherein the third optical path and the fourth optical path are laterally between the first optical path and the second optical path, and wherein the first optical path, the second optical path, the third optical path, and the fourth optical path all extend through a same horizontal plane.
Yamamoto discloses:
"The first and second clad layers 21a and 21b may be made of any suitable film-shaped photopolymer that cures when exposed to UV ray, for example.” ¶ 38
"The common clad layer 25 may be made of any suitable material selected from a film-shaped photopolymer that cures when exposed to UV ray, a film-shaped thermosetting resin that cures when exposed to heat, and a liquid photopolymer that cures when exposed to UV ray, for example.” ¶ 39
Consequently, all clad layers 21a, 21b, and 25 may be made of "film-shaped photopolymer that cures when exposed to UV ray" which is deemed to include making all three layers of the same material, a single material.
As indicated above and per common practice, cladding surrounds the core in a fiber optic/waveguide system in order to prevent the light signal from escaping. Such cladding is seen as continuous.
Per MPEP § 2144.04(V)(B), making separate parts integral is not seen as imparting patentability or being beyond the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965) (A claim to a fluid transporting vehicle was rejected as obvious over a prior art reference which differed from the prior art in claiming a brake drum integral with a clamping means, whereas the brake disc and clamp of the prior art comprise several parts rigidly secured together as a single unit. The court affirmed the rejection holding, among other reasons, “that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice.”); but see Schenck v. Nortron Corp., 713 F.2d 782, 218 USPQ 698 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (Claims were directed to a vibratory testing machine (a hard-bearing wheel balancer) comprising a holding structure, a base structure, and a supporting means which form “a single integral and gaplessly continuous piece.” Nortron argued that the invention is just making integral what had been made in four bolted pieces. The court found this argument unpersuasive and held that the claims were patentable because the prior art perceived a need for mechanisms to dampen resonance, whereas the inventor eliminated the need for dampening via the one-piece gapless support structure, showing insight that was contrary to the understandings and expectations of the art.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a continuous and surrounding cladding layer of the same, single material along the lines of Yamamoto and MPEP § 2144.04(V)(B) in a system according to Yamamoto as set forth above in order to provide a waveguide structure. This provides one rationale to combine the references.
Another completely independent and separately sufficient rationale arises as follows. In making the combination (above), prior art elements (listed above) are combined according to known methods (per the references) to yield predictable results (an optoelectronic system) would occur as each element merely performs the same function in combination as it does separately. MPEP § 2141(III). This additional rationale is a sufficient, a complete, and an explicitly-recognized rationale to combine the references and conclude that the claim is obvious both under the controlling KSR Supreme Court case and MPEP § 2141(III)(A). Current Office policy regarding the determination of obviousness is set forth in the Federal Register notice at 89 Fed. Reg. 14449 (Feb. 27, 2024).
Further, the combination would then provide:
the glass substrate comprising a single material continuous between the first side and the second side.
Regarding:
a third optical path that extends through the first side of the glass substrate;
a fourth optical path that extends through the first side of the glass substrate; and
a second optical waveguide within the glass substrate and completely surrounded by the single material of the glass substrate,
the second optical waveguide between the third optical path and the fourth optical path,
the second optical waveguide having a first end that is optically coupled with the third optical path and having a second end opposite the first end that is optically coupled with the fourth optical path,
wherein the second optical waveguide is vertically overlapping with the first optical waveguide along a vertical axis.
Kim discloses an optical connection block, optical module, and optical axis alignment method using the same that includes (Figs. 3A-13 and associated text):
(¶ 54) The first and second optical connection blocks 420a and 420b are inserted into the respective grooves 410a and 410b of the planar optical waveguide 410 in such a manner that both ends of the optical fibers 421aand [sic] 421b face the waveguides 412 and corresponding PCBs 430a and 430b, respectively.
The foregoing relationship between the optical connection blocks 420a/b and the respective waveguides 412 is seen to apply to the blocks and waveguides of Figs. 7, 9, 11, and 13.
Figs. 7, 9, 11, and 13 (particularly Fig. 9) are seen to show:
a third optical path that extends through the first side of the [glass] substrate (left side, 721a);
a fourth optical path that extends through the first side of the [glass] substrate (right side, 721a); and
a second optical waveguide (lower waveguides between the left/right 721a elements) within the [glass] substrate and completely surrounded by the single material of the [glass] substrate (per the Figs./ Fig. 9),
the second optical waveguide (lower waveguide) between the third optical path (left 721a) and the fourth optical path (right 721a),
the second optical waveguide (lower waveguide) having a first end (left end above 713) that is optically coupled with the third optical path (left 721a) and having a second end (right end above 716) opposite the first end that is optically coupled with the fourth optical path (right 721a),
wherein the second optical waveguide (lower waveguide) is vertically overlapping with the first optical waveguide (upper waveguide between the left/right 721b elements) along a vertical axis (generally parallel to dotted line A-A’).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a parallel optical waveguide/signal pathway configuration along the lines of Kim in a system according to Yamamoto as set forth above in order to provide additional signal capacity. This provides one rationale to combine the references.
Another completely independent and separately sufficient rationale arises as follows. In making the combination (above), prior art elements (listed above) are combined according to known methods (per the references) to yield predictable results (optoelectronic device) would occur as each element merely performs the same function in combination as it does separately. MPEP § 2141(III). This additional rationale is a sufficient, a complete, and an explicitly-recognized rationale to combine the references and conclude that the claim is obvious both under the controlling KSR Supreme Court case and MPEP § 2141(III)(A). Current Office policy regarding the determination of obviousness is set forth in the Federal Register notice at 89 Fed. Reg. 14449 (Feb. 27, 2024).
Lastly, as Kim Fig. 9 shows relative interior and exterior waveguide systems, in light of the articulation above, when the second optical waveguide as well as the third and fourth optical paths are, or can be, swapped with the first optical waveguide and first and second optical paths, respectively and mutatis mutandis, to achieve the subject matter of the claim.
Kim also shows that the optical paths of the first waveguide core 22a and the optical paths of the second waveguide core 22b as being through a same side of the stack of clad layers 21a, 25 and 21b, let alone disclosing the optical paths of the first waveguide core 22a as being laterally between the optical paths of the second waveguide core 22b where the third optical path and the fourth optical path are laterally between the first optical path and the second optical path, and where the optical paths of the first waveguide core 22a and the optical paths of the second waveguide core 22b all extend through a same horizontal plane.
Yamamoto shows "the first optical path, the second optical path, the third optical path, and the fourth optical path all extend through a same horizontal plane" in Fig. 5.
Per the obviousness analyses, above, the aspects here of Kim and Yamamoto would be within the knowledge of the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a motivation to combine arising from the ability to control the geometry/configuration of optical signal transmission/reception.
Further, the combination would then provide:
a third optical path that extends through the first side of the glass substrate;
a fourth optical path that extends through the first side of the glass substrate; and
a second optical waveguide within the glass substrate and completely surrounded by the single material of the glass substrate,
the second optical waveguide between the third optical path and the fourth optical path,
the second optical waveguide having a first end that is optically coupled with the third optical path and having a second end opposite the first end that is optically coupled with the fourth optical path,
wherein the second optical waveguide is vertically overlapping with the first optical waveguide along a vertical axis.
wherein the third optical path and the fourth optical path are laterally between the first optical path and the second optical path, and wherein the first optical path, the second optical path, the third optical path, and the fourth optical path all extend through a same horizontal plane.
With respect to claim 2, Yamamoto in view of legal precedent and Kim as set forth above discloses the apparatus of claim 1, including one further comprising
a reflector within the glass substrate (Yamamoto ¶ 49, "center points 41 and 42 of the 2 light propagation direction converting mirrors located on both end surfaces thereof, and the length of the core 22b corresponds to a distance between center points 43 and 44 of the 2 light propagation direction converting mirrors located on both end surfaces thereof."),
a portion of the reflector intersecting the first optical path and aligned with the first end of the optical waveguide (per Figs. 5 and 6A).
With respect to claim 3, Yamamoto in view of legal precedent and Kim as set forth above discloses the apparatus of claim 2, including one wherein the reflector is a selected one of:
a flat reflector or a curved reflector.
Figs. 5 and 6A show flat reflectors. Curved reflectors are known and are present in art cited by examiner.
With respect to claim 6, Yamamoto in view of legal precedent and Kim as set forth above discloses the apparatus of claim 2, including one wherein
the reflector is a first reflector (41, generally); and further comprising a second reflector within the glass substrate (42, generally),
a portion of the second reflector intersecting the second optical path and aligned with the second end of the optical waveguide (per Figs. 5 and 6A).
With respect to claim 7, Yamamoto in view of legal precedent and Kim as set forth above discloses the apparatus of claim 6, including one wherein the second reflector is a selected one of:
a flat reflector or a curved reflector.
Figs. 5 and 6A show flat reflectors. Curved reflectors are known and are present in art cited by examiner.
With respect to claim 12, Yamamoto in view of legal precedent and Kim as set forth above discloses the apparatus of claim 1, including one wherein
the first optical waveguide and the second optical waveguide are at different distances from the first side of the glass substrate .
Per Kim Figs. 7, 9, 11, and 13 (particularly Fig. 9).
With respect to claim 13, Yamamoto in view of legal precedent and Kim as set forth above discloses the apparatus of claim 1, including one wherein
the first optical path and the second optical path include air.
Fig. 6A shows openings 53a, 53b that are seen to provide air for the optical paths.
Fig. 5 is deemed to show the same structures but without reference numbers.
With respect to claim 14, Yamamoto in view of legal precedent and Kim as set forth above discloses the apparatus of claim 1, including one wherein
the first optical waveguide is parallel to the first side of the glass substrate.
Per Fig. 5.
With respect to claim 15, Yamamoto in view of legal precedent and Kim as set forth above discloses the apparatus of claim 1, including one wherein
the first optical waveguide has a first portion that is parallel to the first side of the glass substrate and a second portion that is parallel to the first side of the glass substrate, and
wherein the first portion of the first optical waveguide is at a first distance from the first side of the glass substrate, and
the second portion of the first optical waveguide is at a second distance from the first side of the glass substrate .
The sides of the waveguide (generally 22a) nearer to and farther from the top surface are seen to meet these limitations.
With respect to claim 16, Yamamoto in view of legal precedent and Kim as set forth above discloses the apparatus of claim 1, including one wherein
the first optical path or the second optical path is an optical waveguide.
At least the second optical path is in the waveguide at 22a, generally.
With respect to claim 18, Yamamoto in view of legal precedent and Kim as set forth above discloses a method comprising:
providing a layer of glass having a first side and a second side opposite the first side,
the glass layer comprising a single material continuous between the first side and the second side;
forming a first waveguide within the layer of glass and completely surrounded by the single material of the layer of glass,
the first waveguide having a first end and a second end opposite the first end;
forming a first optical path that extends through the first side of the layer of glass to the first end of the first waveguide;
forming a second optical path that extends from the second end of the first waveguide and extends through the first side of the layer of glass;
forming a second waveguide within the layer of glass and completely surrounded by the single material of the layer of glass,
the second waveguide having a first end and a second end opposite the first end;
forming a third optical path that extends through the first side of the layer of glass to the first end of the second waveguide;
and forming a fourth optical path that extends from the second end of the second waveguide and extends through the first side of the layer of glass,
wherein the second optical waveguide is vertically overlapping with the first optical waveguide along a vertical axis, wherein the third optical path and the fourth optical path are laterally between the first optical path and the second optical path, and
wherein the first optical path,
the second optical path,
the third optical path, and
the fourth optical path all extend through a same horizontal plane.
The method of claim 18 above would naturally occur in the construction and/or manufacture of a device as set forth in claim 1, above.
With respect to claim 19, Yamamoto in view of legal precedent and Kim as set forth above discloses the method of claim 18, including one wherein
the first optical path or the second optical path are air.
Fig. 6A shows openings 53a, 53b that are seen to provide air for the optical paths.
Fig. 5 is deemed to show the same structures but without reference numbers.
See claim 13, above.
With respect to claim 20, Yamamoto in view of legal precedent and Kim as set forth above discloses the method of claim 18, including one wherein
forming the first optical path further includes forming a reflector in the first optical path (¶ 49, "center points 41 and 42 of the 2 light propagation direction converting mirrors located on both end surfaces thereof, and the length of the core 22b corresponds to a distance between center points 43 and 44 of the 2 light propagation direction converting mirrors located on both end surfaces thereof."),
a portion of the reflector intersects the second optical path and aligns with the first end of the optical waveguide (per Figs. 5 and 6A).
Per claim 2, above.
With respect to claim 21, Yamamoto in view of legal precedent and Kim as set forth above discloses the method of claim 18, including one wherein
forming the first waveguide within the layer of glass further includes forming the first waveguide along a plane that is substantially parallel to a plane of the first side of the layer of glass.
Per Fig. 5.
See claim 14, above.
With respect to claim 22, Yamamoto in view of legal precedent and Kim as set forth above discloses the method of claim 18, including one wherein
forming the first waveguide further includes forming the first waveguide using a selected one of:
a laser writing process,
ion-exchange,
a hermetic bonding process,
or a eutetic bonding process.
The formation of a waveguide having both a core and clad is seen as one that is hermetic as the core and clad must closely bond with one another to prevent attenuation of the optical signal.
With respect to claim 23, Yamamoto in view of legal precedent and Kim as set forth above discloses a package including one comprising:
a first die (Fig. 5, LD1) coupled with a side of a glass layer (first and second cores 22a and 22b; ¶ 38, "The first and second clad layers 21a and 21b may be made of any suitable film-shaped photopolymer that cures when exposed to UV ray, for example.” Such a photopolymer is considered to be an amorphous solid and, as such, glass.),
the glass layer comprising a single material continuous between the side and a second side of the glass layer (per claim 1, above, and its obviousness analysis);
a second die (PD1) physically and optically coupled with the side of the glass layer (21a, generally); and
a third die (Kim Fig. 7, first photoelectric conversion device 632a) physically and optically coupled with the side of the glass layer (per the combination);
and the glass layer (Yamamoto 21a) comprising:
a first optical waveguide (the middle part of the core area generally indicated by 22a) within the glass layer (21a/b) and completely surrounded by the single material of the glass layer (per claim 1, above, and its obviousness analysis),
the first optical waveguide with a first end (left side at/about 41) that is optically coupled with a first optical path, and
the first optical waveguide with a second end (right side at/about 42) opposite the first end that is coupled with a second optical path (at least a portion of the horizontal part of the arrow shown adjacent to 22a in Fig. 5);
the first optical path (Fig. 5, from LD1 to center points 41) extending through the side of the glass layer (the signal from LD1 to that left end);
the second optical path (the signal from LD1 to that left end) extending through the side of the glass layer (the signal from that right end to PD1);
a second optical waveguide (Kim Figs. 7, 9, 11, and 13 (particularly Fig. 9) are seen to show most of the following per claim 1, above. Lower waveguides between the left/right 721a elements) within the glass layer and completely surrounded by the single material of the glass layer (per the Figs./ Fig. 9 and the obviousness combination as set forth above),
the second optical waveguide (lower waveguide) with a first end (left end above 713) that is optically coupled with a third optical path (left 721a), and
the second optical waveguide (lower waveguide) with a second end (right end above 716) opposite the first end that is coupled with a fourth optical path (right 721a), wherein
the second optical waveguide (lower waveguide) is vertically overlapping with the first optical waveguide (upper waveguide between the left/right 721b elements) along a vertical axis (generally parallel to dotted line A-A’);
the third optical path (left side, 721a) extending through the side of the glass layer (per the Figs. in Kim and the articulated combination);
the fourth optical path (right side, 721a) extending through the side of the glass layer (per the Figs. in Kim and the articulated combination); and
wherein the first optical path is optically coupled with the first die (LD1),
wherein the second optical path is optically coupled with the second die (PD1),
wherein the third optical path (left side, 721a) is optically coupled with the first [sic, third] die (Kim Fig. 7, first photoelectric conversion device 632a),
wherein the fourth optical path (right side, 721a) is optically coupled with the third die (632a).
wherein the fourth optical path is optically coupled with the third die,
wherein the third optical path and the fourth optical path are laterally between the first optical path and the second optical path (per the swap of claim 1, above), and wherein the first optical path, the second optical path, the third optical path, and the fourth optical path all extend through a same horizontal plane (per Yamamoto as set forth at the end of claim 1, above.).
With respect to claim 25, Yamamoto in view of legal precedent and Kim as set forth above discloses the package of claim 23, including one wherein
an optical coupling of the first die and an optical coupling of the second die are at a distance of greater than 5 mm along the side of the glass layer.
The distance between the "center points 43 and 44 of the 2 light propagation direction converting mirrors located on both end surfaces" may be of any distance so long as signal recovery occurs (¶ 49, "Hence, it is possible to increase the degree of freedom of design of the opto-electronic circuit board 40 by flexibly coping with optical design conditions of the cores 22a and 22b, even if the lengths of the cores 22a and 22b are different.").
Further, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A).
As the scope of claim 25 departs from that of claim 23 only with regards to the relative dimensions, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device of Yamamoto as set forth above.
Herein, this analysis is referred to as “relative dimensions/size”.
Claims 5 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto in view of legal precedent and Kim as set forth above and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20020064345 of Kikuchi et al. (Kikuchi).
With respect to claim 5, Yamamoto in view of legal precedent and Kim as set forth above discloses the apparatus of claim 2, but not one wherein
the second optical path extends to an optical coupler at an edge of the glass substrate.
Kikuchi discloses an optical waveguide path, manufacturing method and coupling method of the same, and optical waveguide path coupling structure that includes (Fig. 24, ¶¶ 8-9):
micro-lens 109 used to "to convert the light passing through the optical waveguide path into the parallel light".
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a microlens along the lines of Kikuchi in a system according to Yamamoto in view of legal precedent and Kim as set forth above in order to collimate the light and prevent dispersion. This provides one rationale to combine the references.
Another completely independent and separately sufficient rationale arises as follows. In making the combination (above), prior art elements (listed above) are combined according to known methods (per the references) to yield predictable results (an optoelectronic system) would occur as each element merely performs the same function in combination as it does separately. MPEP § 2141(III). This additional rationale is a sufficient, a complete, and an explicitly-recognized rationale to combine the references and conclude that the claim is obvious both under the controlling KSR Supreme Court case and MPEP § 2141(III)(A). Current Office policy regarding the determination of obviousness is set forth in the Federal Register notice at 89 Fed. Reg. 14449 (Feb. 27, 2024).
Further, the combination would then provide:
the second optical path extends to an optical coupler at an edge of the glass substrate.
The microlens being the optical coupler.
With respect to claim 17, Yamamoto in view of legal precedent and Kim as set forth above discloses the apparatus of claim 1, but not one wherein
the first optical path or the second optical path include an optical lens.
Kikuchi discloses an optical waveguide path, manufacturing method and coupling method of the same, and optical waveguide path coupling structure that includes (Fig. 24, ¶¶ 8-9):
micro-lens 109 used to "to convert the light passing through the optical waveguide path into the parallel light".
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a microlens along the lines of Kikuchi in a system according to Yamamoto as set forth above in order to collimate the light and prevent dispersion. This provides one rationale to combine the references.
Another completely independent and separately sufficient rationale arises as follows. In making the combination (above), prior art elements (listed above) are combined according to known methods (per the references) to yield predictable results (an optoelectronic system) would occur as each element merely performs the same function in combination as it does separately. MPEP § 2141(III). This additional rationale is a sufficient, a complete, and an explicitly-recognized rationale to combine the references and conclude that the claim is obvious both under the controlling KSR Supreme Court case and MPEP § 2141(III)(A). Current Office policy regarding the determination of obviousness is set forth in the Federal Register notice at 89 Fed. Reg. 14449 (Feb. 27, 2024).
Further, the combination would then provide:
the first optical path or the second optical path include an optical lens.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 1, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive and the claim rejections are not rebutted.
Applicant argues that:
However, Applicant understands Yamamoto as disclosing the optical paths of the first waveguide core 22a as being through a top side of the stack of clad layers 21a, 25 and 21b, and the optical paths of the second waveguide core 22b as being through a bottom side of the stack of clad layers 21a, 25 and 21b. As such, Applicant does NOT understand Yamamoto as disclosing the optical paths of the first waveguide core 22a and the optical paths of the second waveguide core 22b as being through a same side of the stack of clad layers 21a, 25 and 21b, let alone disclosing the optical paths of the first waveguide core 22a as being laterally between the optical paths of the second waveguide core 22b where the third optical path and the fourth optical path are laterally between the first optical path and the second optical path, and where the optical paths of the first waveguide core 22a and the optical paths of the second waveguide core 22b all extend through a same horizontal plane.
Examiner response: Kim shows:
the optical paths of the first waveguide core 22a and the optical paths of the second waveguide core 22b as being through a same side of the stack of clad layers 21a, 25 and 21b, let alone disclosing the optical paths of the first waveguide core 22a as being laterally between the optical paths of the second waveguide core 22b where the third optical path and the fourth optical path are laterally between the first optical path and the second optical path, and where the optical paths of the first waveguide core 22a and the optical paths of the second waveguide core 22b all extend through a same horizontal plane.
According to the rejections, when the second optical waveguide as well as the third and fourth optical paths are swapped with the first optical waveguide and first and second optical paths, respectively and mutatis mutandis, the articulation of the rejection matches that of the claims. Articulation aside, the device achieved by the combination of Yamamoto in view of Kim as set forth above provides all that is in the relevant claims.
Applicant's arguments with regards to the remaining claims all rely upon the arguments set forth above. Consequently, these remaining arguments as seen as being addressed by the examiner's corresponding remarks.
Applicant’s remaining arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. As such, the examiner makes no remarks regarding them.
Conclusion
Applicant’s publication US 20230091050 A1 published March 23, 2023 was previously cited.
No new art is cited.
This is a request for continued examination/RCE of the current application. All claims are drawn to the same invention claimed in the earlier application and could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the earlier application. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action in this case. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 extension fee 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 ANDREW JORDAN whose telephone number is (571) s270-1571. The examiner can normally be reached most days 1000-1800 PACIFIC TIME ZONE (messages are returned).
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. While examiner does not examine over the phone (see 37 C.F.R. § 1.2), examiner is glad to clarify or discuss issues so long as it forwards prosecution.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Thomas (Tom) HOLLWEG can be reached at (571) 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 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.
/Andrew Jordan/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874
V: (571) 270-1571 (Pacific time)
F: (571) 270-2571
June 25, 2026
Prosecution Insights