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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s Amendment filed April 20, 2026 has been fully considered and entered.
Inventorship
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 18; the claim recites “the first FAU and the third FAU are coupled to the first PIC and the second PIC” in lines 1-2 of the claim. However, as defined in lines 6-7 of base claim 17, the third FAC is coupled to a third PIC. Thus, the limitations of claim 18 contradict the limitations of base claim 17. The examiner suggests changing “first PIC and the second PIC” in line 2 of claim 18 to – first PIC and the third PIC—to overcome this rejection.
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 12, 13, 17 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Nagarajan et al. (US 2022/0283360 A1), hereafter Nagarajan.
Regarding claims 12, 13, 17 and 21; Nagarajan discloses an electronic package (see Figures 4 and 10-12), comprising:
a package substrate (switch package substrate 100; see Figures 10-12);
a die (data processor 600 in Figure 12; control chips 260 of optical modules 200; the examiner notes that the control chips 260 are coupled via intervening structure) coupled to the package substrate (100);
a set of three or more photonics integrated circuits (PICs) (photonics chips 250 of optical modules 200) coupled to the die (600, 260); and
a set of three or more fiber array units (FAUs) (fiber array blocks 270 and 280 of each FAU) coupled to the set of three or more PICs (250), wherein a first FAU (FAU 280 of a first optical module 200) has a first height, a second FAU (FAU 270 of a second optical module) has a second height that is greater than the first height, and a third FAU (FAU 270 of a third optical module) that has the first height, and wherein the second FAU is between the first FAU and the second FAU (see Figures 10 and 11, wherein there are at least first, second and third optical modules 200 in a row on a side of the package substrate 100, having the FAUs (270, 280) attached to each;
wherein the set of three or more FAUs further comprises a fourth FAU (270) with the second height, wherein the third FAU separates the second FAU from the fourth FAU;
wherein in a method of assembling the electronic package, the die (600), plurality of PICs (250) are provided on the package substrate (100) and the first (280), second (270), third (280), and fourth (270) FAUs are coupled to first, second, third, and fourth PICs (see Figures 4 and 10-12 of Nagarajan).
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 1-4, 6-7 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobrinsky et al. (US 2014/0203175 A1), hereafter Kobrinsky, in view of Whaley (US 10,495,820 B1).
Regarding claim 1; Kobrinsky discloses an electronic package (300; see Figure 3A), comprising:
a package substrate (304);
a die (dies 302, 320, 330) coupled to the package substrate (TSVs 332 are provided for connection to the package substrate 304; see paragraph 47);
a photonics integrated circuit (PIC) (PLC310) coupled to the die (320, 330); and
a fiber array unit (FAU) (fiber bundle 306 with coupler 340) optically coupled to the PIC (310).
Kobrinsky does not disclose the details of the FAU (306/340), including the FAU having a base with a first width and a protrusion with a second width that is smaller than the first width, but does disclose that the FAU (306, 340) includes a plurality of optical fibers (fiber bundle 306) with a reflective coupler (340).
Whaley discloses a FAU (101; see Figures 1A and 1B) including a plurality of optical fibers (130) with a reflective coupler (132) and including a base (120) with a first width and a protrusion (140) with a second width that is smaller than the first width (see Figure 1A).
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the FAU of Whaley as the fiber array unit (306/340) of Kobrinsky for the purpose of incorporating a known, readily available FAU having a plurality of fibers and a reflective coupler, since the FAU of Whaley is known alternatives FAU in the prior art and one of ordinary skill could have combined the elements by known coupling methods with no change in their respective functions to yield predictable results. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 2; Kobrinsky and Whaley teach and/or suggest the electronic package of claim 1, further comprising:
a plurality of PICs (PLCs 1030 suggested by the arrangement in Figure 10 of Kobrinsky) coupled to the die (302, 320, 330; the dies are coupled to the PLC via intervening electrical connections and the package substrate); and
a plurality of FAUs (fiber arrays 1050 with couple3rs 1040), wherein each FAU is coupled to a different one of the plurality of PICs (PLCs 1030; see Figure 10 of Kobrinsky).
Regarding claim 3; Kobrinsky and Whaley teach and/or suggest the electronic package of claim 2 as applied above. Before the effective filing date of the present invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use an FAU taught by Whaley as each of the plurality of FAUs, wherein the FAUs of Whaley comprise the base and the protrusion as discussed above with respect to claim 1 for the purpose of incorporating a known, readily available FAU having a plurality of fibers and a reflective coupler to form each FAU, since the FAU of Whaley is known alternatives FAU in the prior art and one of ordinary skill could have combined the elements by known coupling methods with no change in their respective functions to yield predictable results. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 4; Kobrinsky and Whaley teach and/or suggest the electronic package of claim 2, wherein the plurality of FUS including a first FAU and a third FAU separated by a second FAU (see the arrangement of Figure 10, wherein at least a first and third FAU are separated by a second FAU, the first and third FAUs being on different sides of the illustrated arrangement; the examiner notes that the provision of three or more FAUs and corresponding PLCs on one side of the arrangement is within the level of ordinary skill in the art, although not specifically required by the present language of claim 4, and would not constitute allowable subject matter), wherein the second FAU comprises the base and the protrusion (as discussed above with respect to claim 3, each FAU, as suggested by the teachings of Whaley, includes a base and a protrusion).
Regarding claim 6; Kobrinsky and Whaley teach and/or suggest the electronic package of claim 2, but do not specify that a gap between individual FAUs in the plurality of FAUs (see Figure 10 of Kobrinsky) is approximately 100μm or less. Before the effective filing date of the present invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to adjust a gap between individual FAUs to allow for the FAUs to be positioned and aligned with PLCs without damage to the FAUs and/or the PLCs and to mitigate unwanted signal interference while providing a compact arrangement of elements, including approximately 100μm or less, since adjusting the gap size to a desired value would not appear to provide any novel or unexpected advantages, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component and it has been held that a change in size is generally recognized in as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955)) and that, 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 (In re 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)), 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)).
Regarding claim 7; Kobrinsky and Whaley disclose and/or suggest the electronic package of claim 1, but fail to specify that the base has a height that is greater than a height of the PIC. Before the effective filing date of the present invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to adjust both the base height and the height of the PIC to provide a device having desired dimensions for an intended use, including provide a base having a height that is greater than a height of the PIC, since this would not produce and novel or unexpected results or advantages, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component and it has been held that a change in size is generally recognized in as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955)) and that, 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 (In re 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)), 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)).
Regarding claim 10; Kobrinsky and Whaley teach and/or suggest the electronic package of claim 1, wherein the FAU is optically coupled to the PIC by a grating coupler (see Figure 3A and paragraph 50 of Kobrinsky, wherein coupling mirror 316 may be replaced by a grating coupler; the examiner notes that these are standard, known alternative, coupling arrangements of prior art).
Regarding claim 11; Kobrinsky and Whaley teach and/or suggest the electronic package of claim 1, wherein the FAU (306/340) is optically coupled to the PIC (310) by edge coupling at a bottom or a top of the PIC (a bottom edge of a coupling portion is coupled to a top edge of the PIC; see Figure 3A of Kobrinsky).
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobrinsky et al. (US 2014/0203175 A1), hereafter Kobrinsky, in view of Whaley (US 10,495,820 B1), and further in view of Zhang et al. (US 2021/0132309 A1).
Regarding claim 8; Kobrinsky and Whaley teach and/or suggest the electronic package of claim 1 as applied above, but do not specifically teach a cutout in the package substrate, wherein the FAU passes at least partially through the cutout.
Kobrinsky teaches that alternative embodiments may include a PIC (PLC 740, On-PKG waveguides 850; see Figures 7 and 8) contained within a package substrate.
Zhang et al. teaches that a package substrate (102) may include a cutout (110; see Figure 1A), wherein an FAU (optical fiber array 112) at least partially passes through the cutout to be coupled to a photonics chip (101) embedded within the substrate.
Thus, before the effective filing date of the present invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to alternatively position the PIC within a package substrate and to provide a cutout in the package substrate, wherein the FAU passes at least partially through the cutout for the purpose of connecting the FAU to the PIC within the substrate in a known manner, since this is a known alternative prior art arrangement and one of ordinary skill could have combined the elements by known coupling methods with no change in their respective functions to yield predictable results. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 9; Kobrinsky and Whaley teach or suggest the electronic package of claim 8, but do not specify that a width of the cutout is up to approximately 100μm more than the first width. Before the effective filing date of the present invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have the width of the cutout being greater than the first width for the purpose of allowing the FAU to be inserted therein, including approximately 100μm more than the first width, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component and it has been held that a change in size is generally recognized in as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955)) and that, 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 (In re 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)), 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)).
Claims 14-16, 18, 20, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagarajan et al. (US 2022/0283360 A1), hereafter Nagarajan.
Regarding claim 14; Nagarajan et al. discloses the electronic package of claim 12, but fails to disclose that the second FAU has a T-shaped cross-section. 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 second FAU with any desired cross-section, including a T-shaped cross-section for the purpose of making the FAU easier to handle for assembly, since no novel or unexpected advantages would appear to occur from selection of a desired cross section and It has been held that more than mere change of form or rearrangement of parts is necessary for patentability (Span-Deck Inc. v. Fab-Con, Inc. (CA 8, 1982) 215 USPA 835), that change in form of any element of prior patent must result in more than useful natural phenomenon that man has accumulated through common knowledge; even though use of new device greatly improves field and provides great utility, and commercial success is enjoyed because of long-felt need, these features cannot sustain patentability where involves is only extended application of obvious attributes from prior art (Span-Deck, Inc. v. Fab-Con, Inc. (CA 8, 1982) 215 USPQ 835), and that the configuration of an element of prior art is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration is significant (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 15; Nagarajan discloses the electronic package of claim 12, as discussed above, but fails to disclose that a space between the fist FAU and the second FAU is approximately 100 μm or less. Before the effective filing date of the present invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to provide any desired space between the first FAU and the second FAU, including a space of approximately 100 μm or less to allow for the FAUs to be positioned and aligned with PLCs without damage to the FAUs and/or the PICs and to mitigate unwanted signal interference while providing a compact arrangement of elements, since adjusting the space size to a desired value would not appear to provide any novel or unexpected advantages, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component and it has been held that a change in size is generally recognized in as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955)) and that, 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 (In re 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)), 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)).
Regarding claim 16; Nagarajan discloses the electronic package of claim 12 as applied above, wherein the second height appears to be at least twice as large as the first height (see Figure 4), but does not expressly state this. 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 second height to be at least twice as large as the first height for the purpose of providing sufficient room for the two FAUs (270 and 280) to be present without damaging either of the FAUs, since this arrangement would not appear to provide any novel or unexpected advantages, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component and it has been held that a change in size is generally recognized in as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955)) and that, 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 (In re 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)), 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)).
Regarding claim 18; Nagarajan discloses the method of claim 17, wherein the first FAU and the third FAU are coupled to first PIC and the third PIC, and the second FAU is coupled to the second PIC but does not specify that first and third FAUs are coupled before the second FAU is coupled to the second PIC. However, the first and third FAUs (280) are the lower FAUs (see Figure 4) and the second FAU (270) is an upper FAU, and it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to couple all of the lower FAUs (280) before coupling the higher FAUs (270) above corresponding lower FAUs (280) for ease of assembly, and thus a person of ordinary skill, before the effective filing date of the present invention, would have found it obvious to couple the first and third FAUs before coupling the second FAU in the invention of Nagarajan.
Regarding claim 20; Nagarajan discloses the method of claim 17, and suggest that the first height is half the second height or less (see Figure 4), but does not explicitly state that the first height is half the second height or less. Before the effective filing date of the present invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have the first height be half the second height or less for the purpose of providing sufficient room for the two FAUs (270 and 280) to be present without damaging either of the FAUs, since this arrangement would not appear to provide any novel or unexpected advantages, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component and it has been held that a change in size is generally recognized in as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955)) and that, 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 (In re 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)), 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)).
Regarding claim 22; Nagarajan discloses the method of claim 17 as applied above, but does not specify that the third FAU is coupled to the third PIC before the first FAU is coupled to the first PIC. Before the effective filing date of the present invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to couple any FAU to any desired PIC in any order, since there is not apparent advantage to choosing a specific order for coupling the first and third FAUs to the first and third PICs, respectively, and there is a limited number of options to choose from, i.e. there are only three obvious possibilities, including the first FAU being coupled first, the third FAU being coupled first, or the first and third FAUs being coupled simultaneously. Thus, given the limited number of possibilities, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to couple the third FAU to the third PIC before coupling the first FAU to the first PIC when assembling the device of Nagarajan, since one of ordinary skill could have combined the elements by known coupling methods with any of the limited options with no change in their respective functions to yield predictable results. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagarajan et al. (US 2022/0283360 A1), hereafter Nagarajan, in view of Whaley (US 10,495,820 B1).
Regarding claim 19; Nagarajan discloses the method of claim 17 as applied above, but fails to disclose that the second FAU comprises a base and a protrusion, wherein the protrusion has a width that is smaller than a width of the base.
Whaley teaches that a FAU may comprise a base (120) and a protrusion (140; see Figure 1A) that has a width that is smaller than a width of the base. Before the effective filing date of the present invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the FAU of Nagarajan to provide a base and a protrusion have a width smaller than the width of the base for the purpose of allowing the FAU to be assembled in a desired manner with selected optical fibers, as this was a known alternative configuration of FAUs in the prior art and would not appear to produce any novel or unexpected advantages and one of ordinary skill could have combined the elements by known coupling methods with no change in their respective functions to yield predictable results. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 23-25 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record, which is the most relevant prior art known, does not disclose or render obvious a fiber array unit (FAU), as defined by claim 23, comprising: a base plate with a plurality of V-grooves on a surface of the base plate; a plurality of optical fibers provided in the plurality of V-grooves; and a cover plate over the plurality of optical fibers and the base plate, wherein the base plate or the cover plate comprises a T-shaped cross-section. Claims 24 and 25 are allowable by virtue of dependency from claim 23.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 20, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The rejection of claims 4 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s Amendment to claim 4 and cancellation of claim 5.
The rejection of claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been maintained because the amendment to claim 18 does not cure the noted deficiency.
As further explanation, please refer to Figures 3A, 3B, and 3C, of the present application, which have been annotated below.
PNG
media_image1.png
373
579
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
408
718
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
397
647
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim 17 requires (referring to annotated Figures 3A, 3B and 3C above):
17. (Original) A method of assembling an electronic package (300), comprising:
providing a die (305) and a plurality of photonics integrated circuits (PICs) (310) on a package substrate (301);
coupling a first fiber array unit (FAU) (first FAU, 3151) to a first PIC (first PIC, 310), wherein the first FAU has a first height;
coupling a third FAU (third FAU, 3153) to a third PIC (third PIC, 310), wherein the third FAU has the first height; and
coupling a second FAU (second FAU, 3152) to a second PIC (second, PIC 310), wherein the second FAU has a second height that is greater than the first height, and wherein the second FAU is between the first FAU and the third FAU.
Claim 18 as amended requires:
18. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 17, wherein the first FAU (first FAU, 3151) and the third FAU (third FAU, 3153) are coupled to the first PIC (first PIC, 310) and the second PIC (second, PIC 310) prior to the second FAU (second FAU, 3152) being coupled to the second PIC (second, PIC 310).
Therefore, the limitations of claim 18 contradict the limitations of claim 17 because claim 17 requires the third FAU to be coupled to the third PIC, not the second PIC, and claim 18 requires both the third and the second FAUS to be coupled to only the second PIC. There is no embodiment described that includes the second and third FAUs coupled to the second PIC. The examiner suggested a correction changing “first PIC and the second PIC” in line 2 of claim 18 to – first PIC and the third PIC— to cure this deficiency and agree with the arrangement defined in base claim 17 and illustrated in Figures 3A, 3B and 3C, as annotated above, which is in agreement with the description provided in the specification.
Regarding the rejection of claims 12-13, 17, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Publication No. 2022/0283360 by Nagarajan et al. (hereinafter "Nagarajan").
Applicant states that for among other reasons, the rejections are traversed because Nagarajan does not disclose, or even suggest, first, second, and third FAUs (fiber array units), let alone, such FAUs whereby the second FAU, which is between the first and third FAUs, has a different height. The Action points to Nagarajan's components 270, 280 to satisfy Applicant's claimed FAUs. However, Nagarajan's 270, 280 components are not FAUs; they are actually PLCs (planer light circuits). (See, e.g., Nagarajan at 0042).
The examiner disagrees.
An array of optical fibers 511 extend from 270, thus, 270 is a fiber array unit or an FAU (see Figure 4 of Nagarajan). Claims 12 and 17 do not define a structure of the FAU.
An array of optical fibers 512 extend from 280, thus, 280 is a fiber array unit or an FAU (see Figure 4 of Nagarajan). Claims 12 and 17 do not define a structure of the FAU.
FAUs may include additional elements, as along as they include an array of optical fibers they are considered to be an optical fiber array unit.
Applicant states that, as is known in the art, a planar light circuit (PLC) in silicon photonics is essentially a photonic integrated circuit, a patterned optical waveguide network fabricated in or on silicon (or silica-on-silicon) that routes, splits, combines, and processes light on a flat chip. A PLC includes waveguides that are formed in a planar layer on a substrate for performing various light-circuit operations. On the other hand, a fiber array unit (FAU) is a passive optical component that holds and precisely aligns multiple optical fibers so they can couple light into or out of a photoelectronic IC (PIC).
Even if Nagarajan's PLCs could be construed as FAUs, which they cannot, there is no indication that a second PLC 280 has a different height than and is disposed between first and third PLCs 270. This is not surprising since from the figures, there does not appear to be tight spacing between adjacent PLCs and thus there would be no need to use PLCs with different height profiles for tightly spaced mountings. Accordingly, the rejections should be withdrawn.
The examiner disagrees.
Claims 12 and 17 do not define a particular structure of the FAUs. The FAUs, 270 and 280, each include an array of optical fibers, 511 and 512, respectively (see Figure 4 of Nagarajan).
FAUs may include additional structure such as integrated waveguides coupled to the array of fibers, the language of the claims does not preclude the presence of integrated waveguides in a fiber array unit, FAU.
Figure 4 of Nagarajan illustrates that each FAU 270 has a height that is greater than each FAU 280. Each optical module 200 includes both FAU 280 and FAU 270.
The prior art discloses the claim limitations as set forth in the rejection repeated above.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., tighter FAU spacing) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Claims 12 and 17 do not define a specific spacing.
Regarding the rejection of claims 23-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 10,495,820 by Whaley (hereinafter "Whaley"):
The rejection has been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s arguments.
Regarding the rejection of Claims 1-7 and 10-11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2014/0203175 by Kobrinsky et al. (hereinafter "Kobrinsky") and Whaley.
Applicant traverses the rejections.
Applicant states that in making the rejections, the Action relies on Whaley to teach "a fiber array unit (FAU) optically coupled to the PIC, wherein the FAU has a base with a first width and a protrusion with a second width that is smaller than the first width".
The examiner agrees. The rejection states that “Whaley discloses a FAU (101; see Figures 1A and 1B) including a plurality of optical fibers (130) with a reflective coupler (132) and including a base (120) with a first width and a protrusion (140) with a second width that is smaller than the first width (see Figure 1A).”
Applicant argues that Whaley discloses a FAU with base and cover plates but neither its base or cover plate has a protrusion, as is required by these claims. Whaley's base 140 may itself be a protrusion, relative to its cover plate 120, but its base, itself, does not have both a first width and a protrusion with a second width that is smaller than the first width.
The examiner disagrees. The claim broadly recites “the FAU has a base with a first width and a protrusion with a second width that is smaller than the first width.” Whaley discloses a FAU (101) having a base (120) with a first width and a protrusion (cover 140 protrudes from the base) with a second width that is smaller than the first width.
Applicant states that as described in the Application, this structure allows for tool (e.g., tweezer) manipulation of the FAUs in a manner that facilitates tighter FAU spacing between one another. Neither of the cited references is concerned with such tight spacing of its FAUs and so they do not provide a solution for redressing this issue.
In response to applicant's argument that the structure allows for “manipulation of the FAUs”, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
The prior art meets the structural limitations as detailed in the rejection.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., tighter FAU spacing) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Claim 1 does not define a specific spacing.
Regarding the rejection of claims 8-9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kobrinsky, Whaley, and U.S. Publication No. 2021/0132309 by Zhang et al. (hereinafter "Zhang").
Applicant states that, for the reasons set forth above, the rejections should be withdrawn since Whaley fails to teach the FAUs as they are claimed.
The examiner disagrees for the reasons discussed above with respect to the rejection of claims 1-7 and 10-11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2014/0203175 by Kobrinsky et al. (hereinafter "Kobrinsky") and Whaley.
Regarding the rejection of claims 14-16, 18, 20, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Nagarajan or Nagarajan and Whaley:
Applicant states that these rejections are traversed because among other reasons, as discussed above, Nagarajan does not teach FAUs but rather teaches PLCs and thus cannot be used to establish a prima facie case of obviousness since they do not teach applicant's FAUs as they are claimed.
The examiner disagrees for all of the reasons discussed above.
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 MICHELLE R CONNELLY whose telephone number is (571)272-2345. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9 AM to 5 PM.
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, Uyen-Chau Le can be reached at 571-272-2397. 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.
/MICHELLE R CONNELLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights