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 .
Joint Inventors
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.
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendment filed 12/12/2025 has been considered and entered.
The rejections under 35 USC 112 set forth in the office action mailed 08/12/2025 is withdrawn in view of the applicant’s amendments.
Response to Arguments
With regards to the rejections of claims 1-2, 4-12, 14-16, and 18-20, the rejections under 35 USC 102 and 35 USC 103 set forth in the office action received 08/12/2025 are withdrawn in view of the applicants’ arguments.
With regards to the rejections of claims 21-24, the applicant’s arguments (pages 4-5 of the remarks received 12/12/2025) have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
With regards to independent claim 21, applicant has argued that “…Koumans’ “Reflector cover 17” does not function as an interface that an optical connector “plugs into,” nor does it provide a pluggable connection as claimed…”. However, examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner has considered the phrase “…by plugging into…” as it appears in amended claim 21 at face value and has interpreted the amended limitation as requiring that a portion of the optical connector be inserted within the optical connector interface. Figure 2 of Koumans presents at least elements 61, 62, and 63 as positive physical features. Figure 1 of Koumans presents element 17 as wholly encompassing elements 61, 62, and 63. Since elements 61, 62, and 63 are part of the optical connector of Koumans and are presented as interfacing with element 17 via insertion, Koumans discloses the limitation “…wherein the optical connector is to mate with an optical connector interface by plugging into the optical connector interface”.
Furthermore, examiner notes that even if the content of Koumans referenced above did not disclose the aforementioned limitation (which is not conceded), the practice of connecting an optical connector to an interface by inserting a portion of the connector structure into the interface structure is common knowledge in the art (See US 11067763 B2, US 20180364426 A1, US 20180059330 A1, and/or WO 2020086777 A1 for examples). As such, whether or not the optical connector is to mate with an optical connector interface by plugging into the optical connector interface would not establish the device of claim 21 as allowable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 21 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Koumans (US 20190079253 A1).
With regards to claim 21, Koumans discloses an optical connector (Koumans/Figs1&2) comprising one or more optical fibers positioned inside the optical connector (Fig2/100 [Optical fibers]) one or more optical focusing elements (Fig6/Optical focusing elements 41 [Ellipsoidal shaped reflecting surface]/Paragraph 34/Lines 5-10) defined in a surface of the optical connector (Fig6), the one or more optical focusing elements to focus a collimated beam entering the optical connector to the one or more optical fibers (Fig12), wherein the one or more focusing elements comprise: one or more focusing mirrors to collimate light from the one or more optical fibers, wherein individual focusing mirrors of the one or more focusing mirrors are total internal reflection (TIR) mirrors defined in a surface of the optical connector (Figs6&12/Light paths depicted by labels 71, 73, and 76; Focusing mirrors 41[Ellipsoidal shaped reflecting surface]/Paragraph 34/Lines 5-10), wherein the optical connector is to mate with an optical connector interface by plugging into the optical connector interface (Figs1&2/Optical connector interface 17 [Reflector cover]).
With regards to claim 24, Koumans discloses the optical connector of claim 21, wherein the one or more optical focusing elements are defined in a reflective surface of the optical connector (Fig6/Optical focusing elements 41 [Ellipsoidal shaped reflecting surface]/Paragraph 34/Lines 5-10).
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 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.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koumans (US 20190079253 A1) in view of Nagarajan (US 20170090132 A1).
With regards to claim 22, Koumans teaches the optical connector of claim 21, but does not teach an optical isolator positioned between the one or more second optical focusing elements and the one or more optical fibers. However, the positioning of an isolator between focusing elements and optical fibers within a connector is well known in the art as exemplified by Nagarajan. Koumans and Nagarajan are considered to be analogous in the field of optical fiber connectors.
Nagarajan teaches an optical isolator positioned between one or more second optical focusing elements and the one or more optical fibers (Nagarajan/Fig9/Isolator 3153 [Isolator], positioned between optical focusing element 3512 [Lens] and one or more optical fibers 31543 [Light coupling channel]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to position an isolator within the apparatus taught by Koumans between the one or more second optical focusing elements and the one or more optical fibers as exemplified by Nagarajan since doing so would further improve the apparatus ability to selectively filter coupled light by wavelength.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koumans (US 20190079253 A1) in view of Akito (US 9377588 B2).
With regards to claim 23, Koumans discloses the optical connector of claim 21, wherein the optical connector comprises one or more alignment rods (Fig2/Alignment rods as circled below) but is silent regarding the alignment rods mating with alignment holes defined in an optical connector interface.
PNG
media_image1.png
228
259
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, the practice of configuring alignment rods to align with alignment holes of an optical connector interface exists in the art as exemplified by Akito. Koumans and Akito are considered to be analogous in the field of optical connections.
Akito discloses an optical connector comprising one or more alignment rods mated with one or more alignment holes defined in an optical connector interface (Akito/Fig4/Alignment rods 15a&b; Alignment holes 34a&b, Optical connector interface 33). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the alignment rods disclosed by Koumans such that they mated with one or more alignment holes defined by an optical connector interface as suggested by Akito since doing so would provide an avenue by which the optical connector could form a sturdy connection with an associated optical device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1-2, 4-12, 14-16, and 18-20 are allowed.
With regards to claim 1, the prior art of record fails to disclose or reasonably suggest an apparatus comprising: a photonic integrated circuit (PIC) die, wherein one or more waveguides are defined in the PIC die; an optical connector interface to mate with an optical connector, wherein the optical connector interface is mounted on a surface of the PIC die; and one or more optical focusing elements configured to focus light from the one or more waveguides into one or more collimated beams, wherein the one or more optical focusing elements are fixed in place relative to the PIC die, wherein the one or more focusing elements comprise: one or more focusing mirrors to collimate light from the one or more waveguides, wherein individual focusing mirrors of the one or more focusing mirrors are total internal reflection (TIR) mirrors defined in a surface of the optical connector interface; and one or more flat mirrors to reflect light from the one or more focusing mirrors to one or more optical fibers of an optical connector mated with the optical connector interface, wherein individual flat mirrors of the one or more flat mirrors are TIR mirrors defined in a surface of the optical connector interface. The closest prior art was relied upon in the rejection set forth 08/12/2025.
Claims 2, 4-12, 14-16, and 18 inherit the allowability of claim 1 on which they depend.
With regards to claim 19, the prior art of record fails to disclose or reasonably suggest an apparatus comprising: a photonic integrated circuit (PIC) die comprising one or more waveguides; an optical connector interface, wherein the optical connector interface is mounted on a surface of the PIC die; an optical connector mated with the optical connector interface, wherein the optical connector comprises one or more optical fibers; wherein the optical connector interface comprises one or more optical focusing elements configured to focus light emitted from the one or more waveguides to the one or more optical fibers of the optical connector, wherein the one or more focusing elements comprise: one or more focusing mirrors to collimate light from the one or more waveguides, wherein individual focusing mirrors of the one or more focusing mirrors are total internal reflection (TIR) mirrors defined in a surface of the optical connector interface; and one or more flat mirrors to reflect light from the one or more focusing mirrors to the one or more optical fibers, wherein individual flat mirrors of the one or more flat mirrors are TIR mirrors defined in a surface of the optical connector interface. The closest prior art was relied upon in the rejection set forth 08/12/2025.
Claim 20 inherits the allowability of claim 19 on which it depends.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 Marc E Manheim whose telephone number is (703)756-1873. The examiner can normally be reached 6:30am - 5pm E.T., Monday - Tuesday and Thursday - 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, Thomas A 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.
/MARC E MANHEIM/Examiner, Art Unit 2874
/THOMAS A HOLLWEG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874