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 7/11/2025 has been fully considered and entered.
The objections to the specification, which were set forth in the Office action mailed 5/9/2025, have been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s Amendment.
The objections to the drawings, which were set forth in the Office action mailed 5/9/2025, have been maintained in view of Applicant’s Amendment. Applicant overcame most of the objections, but not all. See section below for details.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-2, 4-16, and 21 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.
Specification
The amended specification was received on 7/11/2025. The specification is acceptable.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 7/11/2025. These drawings are acceptable.
The drawings are objected to because the arrow mentioned in the specification for 4010 in Figure 41 is not clear. The examiner suggests clarity like the example below. Refer also to MPEP §1.84(l)-(m).
An example where the arrow is unclear: An example where the arrow is clear:
PNG
media_image1.png
470
565
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
374
201
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 4 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 15: “couples” should instead state “coupled”.
Claim 5, line 1: “first subcircuit” should instead state “first photonic integrated subcircuit”
Claim 5, line 2: “second subcircuit” should instead state “second photonic integrated subcircuit”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 12 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.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "a third alignment feature" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation, which renders the claim indefinite as claim 1 recites “a first cartridge comprising… a ferrule having a third alignment feature” and claim 12 recites “the first cartridge comprises a third alignment feature.” It is unclear if this third alignment feature is the same third alignment feature introduced in claim 1 or if this is a different third alignment feature, perhaps of the same structure type, but located elsewhere in the system. For the purposes of examination, the third alignment feature of the first cartridge is being treated as “a different third alignment feature”.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-6, 9-16, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Choudhury et al. in US 20050238290 A1 (hereinafter "Choudhury").
Regarding claims 1 and 21, Choudhury discloses a system for coupling photonic integrated subcircuits (and a method of providing, receiving, and aligning) said system, the system comprising:
a first cartridge (waveguide substrate 37 is interpreted as a first cartridge; see Fig. 3) comprising a first photonic integrated subcircuit (lower wafer 39 including waveguides 44 is interpreted as a first photonic integrated subcircuit; see Fig. 4) and a first alignment feature (lower portion passageways 46 are interpreted as a first alignment feature; see Fig. 4);
a second cartridge (connector ferrule 21 is interpreted as a second cartridge) comprising a second photonic integrated subcircuit (optical fibers 31 are interpreted as a second photonic integrated subcircuit) and a second alignment feature (one of the pins 35 and its corresponding pin passage 36 is interpreted as a second alignment feature); and
a ferrule (ferrule body 34; see Para. 27) having a third alignment feature (the other one of the pins 35 is interpreted as a third alignment feature),
wherein the first alignment feature (46) and the second alignment feature (one of 35 and 36) are configured to enable alignment (when 35 and 46 are mated, the optical fibers and waveguides will be aligned) between the first photonic integrated subcircuit (39 including 44) and the second photonic integrated subcircuit (31),
wherein the third alignment feature (the other one of 35) is configured to receive (the pin is interpreted as being configured to receive a passageway such as 46 since they may be mated together) at least one of the first alignment feature (46), and
wherein, when the first photonic integrated subcircuit (39 including 44) is aligned to the second photonic integrated subcircuit (31), a first light path of the first photonic integrated subcircuit (necessarily present in waveguides 44) is optically coupled (purpose of the device; see Para. 2 and 39) to a second light path of the second photonic integrated subcircuit (necessarily present in optical fibers 31).
Regarding claim 2, Choudhury discloses the system of claim 1 as discussed above, wherein the second alignment feature (one of 35 and 36) comprises a receiving feature (35 is interpreted as a receiving feature since it receives the passageway 46) configured to receive the first alignment feature (46).
Regarding claim 4, Choudhury discloses the system of claim 1 as discussed above, wherein the first light path is within a top surface (the mating surface 47 is interpreted as a top surface) of the first photonic integrated subcircuit (39 including 44) and the second light path is within a bottom surface (the mating face 33 is interpreted as the bottom surface) of the second photonic integrated subcircuit (31).
Regarding claim 5, Choudhury discloses the system of claim 4 as discussed above, wherein the top surface (47) of the first subcircuit (39 including 44) partially overlaps (since the identified end surfaces must overlap when they are aligned, they are considered to partially overlap) the bottom surface (32) of the second subcircuit (31).
Regarding claim 6, Choudhury discloses the system of claim 1 as discussed above, wherein the first cartridge (37) comprises a carrier (upper wafer 38 is interpreted as the carrier) configured to hold the first photonic integrated subcircuit (39 including 44; see Fig. 3-4 where grooves 43 in 38 hold 44 when mated).
Regarding claim 9, Choudhury discloses the system of claim 6 as discussed above, wherein the first photonic integrated subcircuit (39 including 44) is bonded to the carrier (38; see Fig. 2-7 and note Para. 42; note adhesive 48 would bond waveguides and both wafers together).
Regarding claim 10, Choudhury discloses the system of claim 9 as discussed above, wherein the first photonic integrated subcircuit is bonded to the carrier using an adhesive (see Para. 42; note adhesive 48 would bond waveguides and both wafers together).
Regarding claim 11, Choudhury discloses the system of claim 1 as discussed above, wherein the first alignment feature (lower portion passageways 46) comprises a rod shape (46 is shaped to hold a rod such as pin 35 and is interpreted as rod-shaped).
Regarding claim 12, Choudhury discloses the system of claim 1 as discussed above, wherein the first cartridge (37) comprises a different third alignment feature (upper portions 45 of the pin passageway are interpreted as a different third alignment feature) and the second cartridge (21) comprises a fourth alignment feature (pin passage 36 is interpreted as a fourth alignment feature; see Fig. 2 and Para. 29),
wherein the third alignment feature (45) and the fourth alignment feature (36) are configured to further enable alignment (45 and 36 help position the attachment pins 35 which are used for aligning the subcircuits) between the first photonic integrated subcircuit (39 including 44) and the second photonic integrated subcircuit (31).
Regarding claim 13, Choudhury discloses the system of claim 1 as discussed above, wherein the second alignment feature (one of 35 and 36) comprises a groove, a hole or a receptacle (passage 36 is interpreted as a groove, hole, and/or receptacle since 36 is a passage that receives and holds pin 35).
Regarding claim 14, Choudhury discloses the system of claim 1 as discussed above, wherein the second alignment feature (one of 35 and 36) comprises a cylindrical groove (passage 36 is interpreted as a groove; see Fig. 3-4 where the back side of passage 36 is unlabeled but has a circular opening; see Fig. 1 where unlabeled passage 36 is a cylindrical groove passing all the way through connector receptacle 21).
Regarding claim 15, Choudhury discloses the system of claim 1 as discussed above, further comprising a first optical component (connector ferrule 21 is an optical component and is interpreted as the first optical component) coupled to the first photonic integrated subcircuit (39 including 44) and the first alignment feature (46).
Regarding claim 16, Choudhury discloses the system of claim 15 as discussed above, wherein the first optical component (21) comprises an optical fiber (a single fiber of fiber optic cable 29 is interpreted as an optical fiber).
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.
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choudhury et al. in US 20050238290 A1 (hereinafter "Choudhury") as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Buchmann et al. in US Patent 5,319,725 A (hereinafter "Buchmann").
Regarding claim 7, Choudhury discloses the system of claim 6 as discussed above, wherein a surface of the carrier (38) comprises an additional alignment feature (fiducial marks which are alignment features, may be seen in Fig. 5 on 39) located between (when substrate output portion is assembled, these fiducial marks, interpreted as an additional alignment feature, would touch and thus be on the surface of 38 while also being located between wafers 38 and 39) the respective photonic integrated subcircuits (39 which has waveguides 44) and the carrier (38), but fails to teach that this additional alignment feature comprises pedestals.
However, pedestals are well known in the art to align stacked materials as taught by Buchmann (see Fig. 3-5; see Col. 8 line 59-Col. 9 line 42 which describes various pedestal and depression alignments for mating between two chips).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the pedestals of Buchmann instead of fiducial marks in the system of Choudhury for the purpose of aligning and locking a component in physical space relative to another component thereby achieving a simple and robust means of increased physical security.
Regarding claim 8, Choudhury discloses the system of claim 6 as discussed above, but fails to teach that the first photonic integrated subcircuit (39) comprises at least two trench features and the carrier (38) comprises at least two portions, and wherein each trench feature is configured to receive a respective portion such that the first photonic integrated subcircuit is secured to the carrier.
However, portions such as pedestals and trench features such as depressions are well known in the art to align stacked materials as taught by Buchmann (see Fig. 3-5; see Col. 8 line 59-Col. 9 line 42 which describes various pedestal and depression alignments for mating between two chips). Specifically, Buchmann teaches a first chip comprises at least two trench features (depressions 56 and 57 are interpreted as trench features) and a second chip comprises at least two portions (pillars 58.1 and 58.2 are interpreted as portions), and wherein each trench feature is configured to receive a respective portion such that the first chip is secured to the second chip (see Col. 8 line 59-Col. 9 line 42; emphasis on the final sentence).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the portions and trenches of Buchmann instead of fiducial marks in the system of Choudhury for the purpose of aligning and locking a component in physical space relative to another component thereby achieving a simple and robust means of increased physical security.
Choudhury/Buchmann does not disclose that the portions are extruded. However, “extruded” is interpreted as a product-by-process limitation and since no additional structure is presumed to be gained via extrusion, the extruded portions have been interpreted as portions regardless of how they were created. Thus claim 8 is considered a product-by-process claim, and thus, this limitation is not given patentable weight and is rejected for the reasons provided above. In product-by-process claims, “once a product appearing to be substantially identical is found and a 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejection [is] made, the burden shifts to the applicant to show an unobvious difference.” MPEP 2113. This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 is proper because the “patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production.” In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARBY M THOMASON whose telephone number is (703)756-5817. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 8am-5pm.
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.
/DARBY M. THOMASON/Examiner, Art Unit 2874
/UYEN CHAU N LE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874