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 .
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.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 16, 18, and 26 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to nonelected species and/or groups, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 29 October, 2025. In the Office Action mailed on 20 November, 2025, Examiner stated that claim 18 was considered to read on Species D and was examined accordingly. However, upon further consideration and in light of arguments against examiner’s interpretation of claim 18, Examiner considers claims 18 and 26 to be specific to nonelected species and they are accordingly withdrawn from further consideration.
As was stated in the Office Action mailed on 20 November, 2025, Applicant’s election with traverse of Species D in the reply filed on 29 October, 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that claim 6 reads on Species B, while claim 7 reads on Species D, and claim 7 depends on claim 6. This is not found persuasive because it does not refute that the species, identified by the Examiner by the figures, have mutually exclusive characteristics. The argument merely highlights that claim 6 is generic to Species B and D.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 20 February, 2026 has been fully considered and entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see section I on pages 8-9 of Remarks filed on 20 February, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of a different interpretation of Hsu (US 2018/0196207; hereinafter Hsu).
However, in the arguments with respect to the rejection of claim 1, Applicant states that Hsu’s dummy lenses are not opaque, since they rely on transmitting and imaging light through the dummy lenses 36, examiner does not find this argument persuasive because no real lens is perfectly transparent and therefore has some opacity. Furthermore, claim 1, which only requires at minimum one optical fiducial, recites “individual waveguides of the one or more auxiliary waveguides direct light through one of the one or more optical fiducials” and further recites “the one or more optical fiducials comprise one or more opaque optical fiducials”. As noted in the 112(b) rejection below, this has led to the interpretation, in light of the specification, that “opaque” may mean “opaque” to a certain degree, or having some opacity.
Regarding claim 13: Applicant argues that Examiner has not provided an interpretation of the corresponding structure in the present application for performing the recited function and does not explain why the cited portions of Hsu disclose the same or equivalent structure. Examiner has further explained the interpretation in the rejection below. Applicant further asserts that claim 13 is allowable over Hsu, but does not provide justification. Therefore, the argument is not persuasive. The rejection is provided below.
Regarding claim 6: Applicant argues that Hsu fails to teach the claimed plane relationship. Examiner disagrees and has provided a new interpretation below in light of the newly provided rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 18: Based on the arguments, Examiner has reconsidered the decision to group claim 18 with the elected embodiment and has determined claim 18 should be withdrawn, as was indicated in the Election/Restriction section above.
Regarding claims 3 and 8: Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 3 and 8 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
Claims 27, 28 and 30 objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 27: “in use, the PIC die is to generate light” appears to be missing the word “configured” or something similar
Regarding claim 28: “apparatus is to determine” appears to be missing the word “configured” or something similar.
Regarding claim 30: “when light passes through the one or more optical fiducials off-center, the diffraction pattern will be asymmetric” has issues with verb tenses. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph 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 the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3 and 27-29 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 3: Claim 3 has been amended to recite that “the axis parallel to the plurality of beams has an angle between 0.5° and 2° relative to the top surface.” Paragraph 0069 references the guide pins 114 being oriented at any suitable angle relative to a top surface of the substrate, such as -2 to 2 degrees, but given that the claim also provides for offset between the guide pins and the axis parallel to the plurality of beams, this does not directly correspond to the axis parallel to the plurality of beams being between 0.5° and 2°.
Regarding claim 27: Newly presented claim 27 states that “in use, the PIC die is to generate light and couple the light to individual waveguides of the one or more auxiliary waveguides.” This lacks support in the originally filed specification.
Regarding claim 28: Newly presented claim 28 depends on claim 27 and inherently contains all of the deficiencies of claim 27. Additionally, support for “a beam of light from the PIC die that is coupled to the one or more auxiliary waveguides” is not found in the originally filed specification.
Regarding claim 29: Newly presented claim 29 states that “the one or more opaque optical fiducials absorb at least 50% of the light incident on the one or more opaque optical fiducials”. This differs from the originally filed specification, which states that “The opaque optical fiducials 112 may absorb any suitable amount of the light from the auxiliary fibers 104, such as 5-95%. These are distinct statements not only because the ranges differ but also because the originally filed specification is ambiguous as to whether the opaque optical fiducials are only absorbing part of the light incident on the opaque optical fiducials or if they are absorbing all of the light incident on the opaque optical fiducials, but only 5-95% of the light from the auxiliary fibers because the fibers also direct light through other areas or apertures, etc. Another possible discrepancy between these is that additional light not from the auxiliary fibers, e.g. at a different wavelength, could be absorbed in different amounts by the opaque optical fiducials.
Claims 1-3, 6-12, and 27-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1: Claim 1 recites “a lens array comprising… one or more optical fiducials”, and further requires “wherein individual waveguides of the one or more auxiliary waveguides direct light through one of the one or more optical fiducials”, and finally requires that “the one or more optical fiducials comprise one or more opaque optical fiducials”. The minimum number of optical fiducials required by the claim is 1. However, it is unclear how the optical fiducial can be opaque and meet the requirement that “the one or more auxiliary waveguides direct light through one of the one or more optical fiducials” because these limitations are conflicting. How is light directed through the optical fiducial if it is opaque? For clarification, Examiner looked to the specification and found paragraph 0048, which states “The opaque optical fiducials 112 may be any suitable size, such as 1-50 micrometers. The opaque optical fiducials 112 may absorb any suitable amount of the light from the auxiliary fibers, such as 5-95%. The opaque optical fiducials 112 may absorb, reflect, or scatter light. In some embodiments, the optical fiducials 112 may cause a phase change in the light without significantly absorbing it. The opaque optical fiducials may be made of any suitable material, such as carbon, silver, aluminum, an interference film, etc. In the illustrative embodiment, the opaque optical fiducials 112 are circular. In other embodiments, the opaque optical fiducials 112 may have any suitable shape, such as a ring.” Based on this description, it appears that the optical fiducial can be considered opaque when it absorbs only 5% of the light from the auxiliary fiber. Additionally, paragraph 0050, referring to Fig. 2, states “in one embodiment, an optical connector has light passing through the two auxiliary optical fibers 104 aligned to the opaque optical fiducials 112. A beam profiler sensor 204 is positioned to sense the beams 202 from the auxiliary optical fibers 104 after they are partially obscured by the opaque optical fiducials 112.” However, if light is directed through the opaque optical fiducials 112 in the illustrated embodiment as claimed, the optical fiducials must not be fully opaque. In another non-illustrated embodiment, the opaque optical fiducial is a ring. Is the opaque optical fiducial of claim 1 specifically referring to a fully opaque ring, wherein light is directed through a transparent center of the ring? If so, the claim should make this clear because it would be missing essential information about the structure of this particular optical fiducial which would allow it to be fully opaque and permit light to be directed “through” it. Based on the available descriptions, for the purpose of examination, Examiner is interpreting “opaque optical fiducial” as an optical fiducial which blocks at least a portion of the light from the auxiliary fiber, such as either comprising a fully opaque ring/aperture or comprising a material with some degree of opacity, such that it absorbs, scatters, or reflects at least a portion of incident light.
Regarding claim 3: “the axis parallel to the plurality of beams” lacks proper antecedent basis. For the purpose of examination, this is interpreted as “an axis parallel to the plurality of beams”.
Regarding claim 30: “the diffraction pattern” lacks proper antecedent basis. For the purpose of examination, this is interpreted as “a diffraction pattern”. However, it is also unclear whether the light had a diffraction pattern before passing through the one or more optical fiducials or whether the diffraction pattern was generated by the optical fiducials. Based on Figs. 3-5 and their accompanying descriptions, which describe light passing through an opaque optical fiducial in the shape of a ring and generating a diffraction pattern, it is understood that the optical fiducials generate the claimed diffraction pattern and that the light did not already have a diffraction pattern before passing through the optical fiducials. It is therefore interpreted accordingly.
Regarding claims 2-3, 6-12, and 27-29: Claims 2-3, 6-12, and 27-29 inherently contain all of the deficiencies of any base or intervening claims from which they depend.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
Claims 1, 6, 7, 9-15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hsu (US 2018/0196207; hereinafter Hsu).
Regarding claim 1: Hsu disclosesAn apparatus (Fig. 3) comprising: a substrate (see paragraph 0038, waveguide substrate 15) comprising a top surface; a lens array (Fig. 3, micro-lens connector 17) comprising a plurality of lenses (Fig. 3, regular lenses 35; as applied to claims 6-7, the top row of regular lenses 35) and one or more optical fiducials (Fig. 3, dummy lenses 36; alternatively, concentrators 36 of Fig. 11; as applied to claims 6-7, bottom-right dummy lens 36 of the micro-lens connector 17); a plurality of waveguides (Fig. 3, channels or WG cores 13), wherein at least part of individual waveguides of the plurality of waveguides extend in a plane parallel to the top surface (compare Figs. 2a and 3, waveguides extend in xy-plane, which is parallel to the top surface), wherein individual waveguides of the plurality of waveguides direct light through a lens of the plurality of lenses (Fig. 3 shows this); andone or more auxiliary waveguides (Fig. 3, dummy cores 33; as applied to claims 6-7, dummy core 33 that directs light through bottom right dummy lens 36), wherein at least part of individual waveguides of the one or more auxiliary waveguides extend in the plane parallel to the top surface (Fig. 3 shows this), wherein individual waveguides of the one or more auxiliary waveguides direct light through one of the one or more optical fiducials (Fig. 3 shows this), wherein the one or more optical fiducials comprise one or more opaque optical fiducials (the term “opaque” is given its broadest reasonable interpretation, to mean obstructing the passage of light to any degree; see, for example, paragraph 0048 of present disclosure, which states “opaque optical fiducials 112 may absorb any suitable amount of light from the auxiliary fibers 104, such as 5% to 95%. The opaque optical fiducials 112 may absorb, reflect, or scatter light”; based on this description, the optical fiducials are considered opaque if, when light passes through them, they provide any opacity by scattering, absorption, or reflection, i.e. they provide any loss; the dummy lenses 36 of Hsu will inherently provide this feature, since any real lenses inherently produce some degree of loss).
Regarding claim 6: Hsu discloses The apparatus of claim 1 (as applied above), wherein the one or more optical fiducials are positioned in a plane different from a plane defined by the plurality of lenses and a line perpendicular to the top surface (see Fig. 2A, which shows that the surfaces of micro-lens connector 17 shown in Figs. 2-3, 6 and 11 are parallel to the top surface of the substrate; therefore, interpreting the top row of micro-lenses 35 as the claimed plurality of lenses and the bottom-right dummy lens 36 as the one or more optical fiducials, the one or more optical fiducials are positioned in a plane different from a plane defined by the plurality of lenses and a line perpendicular to the top surface).
Regarding claim 7: Hsu disclosesThe apparatus of claim 6 (as applied above), further comprising an additional one or more optical fiducials (Figs. 2-3, top-left dummy lens 36 of micro-lens connector 17), wherein the additional one or more optical fiducials are positioned in the plane defined by the plurality of lenses and the line perpendicular to the top surface (see Fig. 2A, which shows that the surfaces of micro-lens connector 17 shown in Figs. 2-3, 6 and 11 are parallel to the top surface of the substrate; therefore, interpreting the top row of micro-lenses 35 as the claimed plurality of lenses, the additional one or more optical fiducials are positioned in the plane defined by the plurality of lenses and the line perpendicular to the top surface).
Regarding claim 9: Hsu disclosesThe apparatus of claim 1 (as applied above), wherein individual waveguides of the plurality of waveguides are bulk waveguides defined in the substrate (see paragraph 0028, polymer waveguides are embedded in the substrate).
Regarding claim 10: Hsu disclosesThe apparatus of claim 1 (as applied above), wherein the plurality of waveguides comprises at least eight waveguides (Fig. 3 shows at least eight waveguides 13).
Regarding claim 11: Hsu disclosesThe apparatus of claim 1 (as applied above), wherein the apparatus is an optical connector (see paragraph 0027, the apparatus is considered to be an optical connector).
Regarding claim 12: Hsu disclosesThe apparatus of claim 1 (as applied above), wherein the substrate is a photonic integrated circuit (PIC) die (see paragraph 0028).
Regarding claim 13: Hsu disclosesAn apparatus (Fig. 3) comprising: a substrate (see paragraph 0038, waveguide substrate 15) comprising a top surface; a lens array (Fig. 3, micro-lens connector 17) comprising a plurality of lenses (Fig. 3, regular lenses 35; as applied to claim 17, top row of lenses 35); a plurality of waveguides (Fig. 3, channels or WG cores 13), wherein at least part of individual waveguides of the plurality of waveguides extend in a plane parallel to the top surface (compare Figs. 2a and 3, waveguides extend in xy-plane, which is parallel to the top surface), wherein individual waveguides of the plurality of waveguides direct light through a lens of the plurality of lenses (Fig. 3 shows this); and means for determining a position of the lens array relative to the substrate (corresponding structure for performing the claimed function are the disclosed “opaque optical fiducials” and a beam sensor, see paragraphs 0048 of present disclosure, which states “opaque optical fiducials 112 may absorb any suitable amount of light from the auxiliary fibers 104, such as 5% to 95%. The opaque optical fiducials 112 may absorb, reflect, or scatter light. In some embodiments, the optical fiducials 112 may cause a phase change in the light without significantly absorbing it”; based on this description, the optical fiducials are considered opaque if, when light passes through them, they provide any opacity by scattering, absorption, or reflection, i.e. they provide any loss; the dummy lenses 36 of Hsu will provide this feature, since any real lenses inherently produce some degree of loss; additionally, the dummy lenses of Hsu and the beam profile sensor disclosed in paragraph 0043 provide a means for determining a position of the lens array relative to the substrate while the lenses also inherently provide a degree of opacity by scattering, absorption, or reflection, according to the description of the opaque optical fiducials; therefore, they are considered to read on the claimed means for determining a position of the lens array relative to the substrate, as one of the disclosed corresponding structures; additionally, examiner notes that as they are optical structures connected to the lens array which generate optical signals for detecting misalignment and are paired with an optical beam sensor, they are fully capable of performing the claimed function, so they are at very least considered to be equivalent to the corresponding structures disclosed in the specification).
Regarding claim 14: Hsu disclosesThe apparatus of claim 13 (as applied above), wherein the means for determining a position of the lens array relative to the substrate comprises: one or more optical fiducials (Fig. 3, dummy lenses 36; as applied to claim 17, bottom-right dummy lens 36) on the lens array and one or more auxiliary waveguides (Fig. 3, dummy cores 33; as applied to claim 17, bottom-right dummy core 33), wherein at least part of individual waveguides of the one or more auxiliary waveguides extend in the plane parallel to the top surface (Fig. 3 shows this), wherein individual waveguides of the one or more auxiliary waveguides direct light through one of the one or more optical fiducials (Fig. 3 shows this).
Regarding claim 15: Hsu discloses The apparatus of claim 14 (as applied above), wherein the one or more optical fiducials comprise one or more opaque optical fiducials (see explanation above regarding interpreting dummy lenses 36 as opaque optical fiducials).
Regarding claim 17: Hsu discloses The apparatus of claim 14 (as applied above), wherein the one or more optical fiducials are positioned in a different plane from a plane defined by the plurality of lenses and a line perpendicular to the top surface (see Fig. 2A, which shows that the surfaces of micro-lens connector 17 shown in Figs. 2-3, 6 and 11 are parallel to the top surface of the substrate; therefore, interpreting the top row of micro-lenses 35 as the claimed plurality of lenses and the bottom-right dummy lens 36 as the one or more optical fiducials, the one or more optical fiducials are positioned in a plane different from a plane defined by the plurality of lenses and a line perpendicular to the top surface).
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.
Claims 27 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu (US 2018/0196207; hereinafter Hsu).
Regarding claim 27: Hsu discloses the apparatus of claim 1, as applied above, wherein the substrate is a photonic integrated circuit (PIC) die (see paragraph 0028). Hsu fails to teach that in use, the PIC die is to generate light and couple the light to individual waveguides of the one or more auxiliary waveguides. However, Hsu does disclose a light source to generate light and couple the light to individual waveguides of the one or more auxiliary waveguides (see Fig. 9B). It has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893). It also has been held the term “integral” is sufficiently broad to embrace constructions united by such means as fastening and welding. In re Hotte, 177 USPQ 326, 328 (CCPA 1973). 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 the Hsu device such that the light source for directing light to the auxiliary waveguides integral to the PIC die, such that the PIC die is to generate light and couple the light to individual waveguides of the one or more auxiliary waveguides, in order to better control and maintain the relative positions of the light source and the auxiliary fibers during the alignment process.
Regarding claim 28: Modified Hsu teachesThe apparatus of claim 27 (as applied above), further comprising a beam profiler (see paragraph 0043, optical sensor, and paragraph 0059), wherein a beam of light from the PIC die that is coupled to the one or more auxiliary waveguides and directed through the one or more optical fiducials is directed to a beam profiler (see paragraph 0059), wherein the apparatus is to determine a misalignment of the lens array based on an asymmetry of the beam of light as measured by the beam profiler (see Fig. 10 and paragraph 0059).
Claims 2 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu (US 2018/0196207; hereinafter Hsu) in view of Nakajima (US 2004/0067015; hereinafter Nakajima).
Regarding claim 2: Hsu discloses the apparatus of claim 1, as applied above. Hsu further discloses that the lens array forms a plurality of beams, wherein the axis parallel to the plurality of beams is not substantially parallel to the top surface of the substrate (see Figs. 1B and 2A, the lens array forms a plurality of beams perpendicular to the top surface of the substrate, as defined above). While Hsu doesn’t explicitly disclose guide pins, Hsu further teaches the microlens connectors 17 in Fig. 3 having structures protruding from either side of the lens arrays which appear to be guide pins or structures therefor. Furthermore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, Nakajima taught that a micro-lens array can be aligned with a waveguide substrate using guide pins which extend in the direction of the optical beam path (see Fig. 3), and further teaches that the lens array can be coarsely aligned with the substrate using large guide pin holes, after which the position can be adjusted based on the collimation of light, and then the position can be fixed with adhesive (see paragraph 0087). Nakajima teaches that this method of aligning a lens array and waveguide is easy, precise, and efficient (see paragraph 0087). In order to easily, efficiently, and precisely align the micro-lens array and the waveguide substrate of the Hsu device, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include guide pins to preliminarily place the lens array on the waveguide substrate, before precisely correcting the alignment using the dummy cores. These guide pins would extend along an axis substantially parallel to the plurality of beams, as this would be normal to the surface of the lens array, which is the configuration taught by Nakajima. Hsu also fails to teach that the lens array forms collimated beams. However, Nakajima teaches that the lens array coupled to waveguides collimates the light beam (see paragraph 0087). Additionally, it would have been a matter of obvious design choice to configure the lens array to either focus or collimate the light based on the requirements of the particular application, in order to shape the light beam in a manner suitable for efficient coupling between components. Since it was taught by Nakajima and since it is a matter of obvious design choice, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide lenses in the lens array which collimate the light beam in the Hsu device.
Regarding claim 19: Hsu discloses the apparatus of claim 13, as applied above. Hsu further discloses that the lens array forms a plurality of beams, wherein the axis parallel to the plurality of beams is not substantially parallel to the top surface of the substrate (see Figs. 1B and 2A, the lens array forms a plurality of beams perpendicular to the top surface of the substrate, as defined above). While Hsu doesn’t explicitly disclose guide pins, Hsu further shows the microlens connectors 17 in Fig. 3 having structures protruding from either side of the lens array which appear to be guide pins or structures therefor. Furthermore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, Nakajima taught that a micro-lens array can be aligned with a waveguide substrate using guide pins which extend in the direction of the optical beam path (see Fig. 3), and further teaches that the lens array can be coarsely aligned with the substrate using large guide pin holes, after which the position can be adjusted based on the collimation of light, and then the position can be fixed with adhesive (see paragraph 0087). Nakajima teaches that this method of aligning a lens array and waveguides is easy, precise, and efficient (see paragraph 0087). In order to easily, efficiently, and precisely align the micro-lens array and the waveguide substrate of the Hsu device, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include guide pins to preliminarily place the lens array on the waveguide substrate, before precisely correcting the alignment using dummy cores. These guide pins would extend along an axis substantially parallel to the plurality of beams, as this would be normal to the surface of the lens array, which is the configuration taught by Nakajima. Hsu also fails to teach that the lens array forms collimated beams. However, Nakajima teaches that the lens array coupled to waveguides collimates the light beam (see paragraph 0087). Additionally, it would have been a matter of obvious design choice to configure the lens array to either focus or collimate the light based on the requirements of their particular application, in order to shape the light beam in a manner suitable for efficient coupling between components. Since it was taught by Nakajima and since it is a matter of obvious design choice, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide lenses in the lens array which collimate the light beam in the Hsu device.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu (US 2018/0196207; hereinafter Hsu) in view of Nakajima (US 2004/0067015; hereinafter Nakajima) and further in view of Giles et al. US 2022/0404566; hereinafter Giles).
Modified Hsu teaches the apparatus of claim 2, as applied above. Nakajima further teaches that the guide pins are parallel to the direction of light propagation (see Nakajima Figs. 2 and 6). Based on this, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the one or more guide pins so that they extend along an axis within 0.1 degrees of parallel to the plurality of beams, when making the modification described above, so that the light is incident normal to the surface of the lens array. Modified Hsu fails to teach that the axis parallel to the plurality of beams has an angle between 0.5 degrees and 2 degrees relative to the top surface. However, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, Giles taught that the axis parallel to the plurality of beams can have any angle between 0 degrees and 90 degrees (see Fig. 2, structures 271 and 272 and paragraph 0187). The selection of an angle for connecting the fibers to the PIC is therefore considered to be a matter of obvious design choice, and based on the teachings of Giles it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the Hsu device such that the axis parallel to the plurality of beams has an angle between 0.5 and 2 degrees relative to the top surface of the substrate to which the assembly is mounted, depending on the design constraints for a particular application.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu (US 2018/0196207; hereinafter Hsu) in view of Wang et al. (US 2008/0317474; hereinafter Wang), as evidenced by Wei et al. (US 2022/0065407; hereinafter Wei).
Hsu discloses
An apparatus (Fig. 3) comprising: a substrate (see paragraph 0038, waveguide substrate 15) comprising a top surface; a lens array (Fig. 3, micro-lens connector 17) comprising a plurality of lenses (Fig. 3, regular lenses 35) and one or more optical fiducials (Fig. 3, dummy lenses 36; alternatively, concentrators 36 of Fig. 11); a plurality of waveguides (Fig. 3, channels or WG cores 13), wherein at least part of individual waveguides of the plurality of waveguides extend in a plane parallel to the top surface (compare Figs. 2a and 3, waveguides extend in xy-plane, which is parallel to the top surface), wherein individual waveguides of the plurality of waveguides direct light through a lens of the plurality of lenses (Fig. 3 shows this); andone or more auxiliary waveguides (Fig. 3, dummy cores 33), wherein at least part of individual waveguides of the one or more auxiliary waveguides extend in the plane parallel to the top surface (Fig. 3 shows this), wherein individual waveguides of the one or more auxiliary waveguides direct light through one of the one or more optical fiducials (Fig. 3 shows this).
Hsu further teaches that when light passes through the one or more optical fiducials off-center, a detected light pattern is asymmetric (see Figs. 10 and 11). However, Hsu fails to teach that the detected light pattern is a diffraction pattern, since the optical fiducial taught by Hsu is a refractive element. Therefore, Hsu fails to teach that when light passes through the one or more optical fiducials off-center, the diffraction pattern will be asymmetric . However, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, Wang taught an optical fiducial comprising a diffractive optical element (see Fig. 1, diffractive optical element 186) which receives a light signal and directs, via diffraction, a light signal to optical alignment receivers (Fig. 1, optical alignment receivers 172, 174, 188, and 190), wherein based on the intensity of the optical energy at the various receivers, the alignment between two optical components can be determined (see paragraph 0032). Examiner notes that while the diffractive optical element in the Wang device is reflective, transmissive diffractive elements are well known in the art, such as the one taught by Wei (see paragraphs 0024, 0035, and Fig. 1C; note that Wei also teaches a reflective diffractive optical element, for example in paragraph 0029). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized an optical fiducial that operates by diffraction to be a suitable alternative to the refractive optical fiducials taught by Wang, since both are means of redirecting a light signal that generate a beam profile which can shape and redirect a light beam, as for example was taught by Wei (see Figs. 1B, 1C, and paragraph 0024, and paragraph 0035). Therefore, it would have been a matter of obvious design choice for a person having ordinary skill in the art to substitute the refractive optical fiducials taught by Hsu for diffractive optical fiducials, such that when light passes through the one or more optical fiducials off-center, the diffraction pattern will be asymmetric, based on the combined teachings of Hsu and Wang and common knowledge in the art, and could further expect the diffractive optical element to achieve the same optical characteristics as the refractive lenses of the Hsu device (as suggested by Wei, paragraph 0035).
Claims 1, 8, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasumura et al. (US 2021/0255392; hereinafter Yasumura) in view of Trott (US 2003/0152328; hereinafter Trott).
Regarding claim 1: Yasumura disclosesAn apparatus (Figs. 8a-c and 11a) comprising: a lens array (Figs. 8a-8b, lens array; see paragraph 0041) comprising a plurality of lenses (Fig. 8a-8b, lenslets 810; Fig. 11a, lenslets 1110) and one or more optical fiducials (Fig. 11a, insert 1124 inherently serves as an optical fiducial, as it is an opaque material, patterned in alignment with the lens array and will inherently aid in aligning the components of the apparatus); a plurality of waveguides (Fig. 11a, fiber 1102 is a waveguide), Yasumura further discloses, wherein individual waveguides of the plurality of waveguides direct light through a lens of the plurality of lenses (Fig. 11a shows this); andone or more auxiliary waveguides (any of the fibers of connected to any lenslet of the lens array can be considered an auxiliary waveguide)Yasumura further discloses wherein individual waveguides of the one or more auxiliary waveguides direct light through one of the one or more optical fiducials (Fig. 11 shows this), wherein the one or more optical fiducials comprise one or more opaque optical fiducials (see paragraph 0050).
Yasumura fails to teach that the apparatus further comprises a substrate having a top surface, that at least part of individual waveguides of the plurality of waveguides extend in a plane parallel to the top surface, and that at least part of individual waveguides of the one or more auxiliary waveguides extend in a plane parallel to the top surface. However, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, Trott taught providing a plurality of optical fibers assembled and aligned in a substrate (see Figs. 1a-b and 2a-b, fibers 112 and substrates 115 and 215), wherein at least part of individual waveguides of the plurality of waveguide extend in a plane parallel to the top surface. Additionally, as noted above, any of the optical fibers connected to the lens array can be considered auxiliary waveguides, which also therefore extend in a plane parallel to the top surface. As taught by Trott, precision machining of a substrate can provide v-grooves with consistent shape and spacing (see paragraph 0009), which can facilitate the alignment of optical fibers, and the substrate further provides mechanical support to the fibers. In order to provide support and facilitate alignment, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the Yasumura device by providing the optical fibers with an underlying substrate, having a top surface, such that at least part of individual waveguides of the plurality of waveguides extend in a plane parallel to the top surface and that at least part of individual waveguides of the one or more auxiliary waveguides extend in a plane parallel to the top surface, based on the teachings of Trott.
Regarding claim 8: Modified Yasumura teaches The apparatus of claim 1 (as applied above), wherein a plurality of V-grooves are defined in the top surface (according to the modification described above; see Trott Figs. 1B, substrate 115 and 2B, substrate 215 having v-grooves 116), wherein individual waveguides of the plurality of waveguides are optical fibers positioned in individual V-grooves of the plurality of V-grooves (according to the modification described above; Trott Figs. 1B and 2B show this).
Regarding claim 29: Modified Yasumura teaches the apparatus of claim 1, as applied above. Yasumura further teaches that the opaque optical fiducials are made of an opaque plastic or low reflective material (see paragraph 0050). Yasumura fails to disclose that the one or more opaque optical fiducials absorb at least 50% of the light incident on the one or more opaque optical fiducials. However, the amount of incident light absorbed by the opaque optical fiducials is a result effective variable, since it eliminates stray light from generating noise or crosstalk. Before the effective filing date of the present invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to provide the apparatus with opaque optical fiducials that absorb at least 50% of the light incident on the one or more opaque optical fiducials, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233), and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kirsten D Endresen whose telephone number is (703)756-1533. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday.
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 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.
/KIRSTEN D. ENDRESEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2874
/THOMAS A HOLLWEG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights