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 .
Detailed Action
Applicant’s election with traverse of Group A (claims 1-12) species in response/amendment is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is a unity of invention for all the group species embodiments as claim 1 is generic to all claims and that cited prior art does not teach claim 1. The examiner responds that the cited reference an exemplary is believed to teach at least claim 1, and the cited prior art below is another prior art reference that teaches at least claim 1. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
The prior art documents submitted by Applicant(s) in the information Disclosure Statement(s) have all been considered and made of record (note the attached copy of form(s) PTO-1449).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over “MacDonald”; US 6005993 A.
MacDonald teaches an optical assembly (see figs. 1-0, summary) comprising:
a substrate 41a comprising a plurality of optical waveguides (shown clearly in at least figs.6 and 10),
PNG
media_image1.png
335
501
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
480
487
media_image2.png
Greyscale
each optical waveguide having a first waveguide end (clearly shown in at least figs.10); and
a unitary optics array 100 assembled to the substrate 41a and comprising:
a support portion (bottom side of the unitary optics array) attached to the substrate 31a and covering at least a portion of a major top surface of the substrate 31a; an input surface facing the first waveguide end of each optical waveguide (shown clearly in at least figs.6 and 10);
a redirecting surface (the side surfaces with waveguides); an dan output surface , such that for each optical waveguide in the plurality of optical waveguides (clearly shown in at least figs. 10), the input surface is configured to receive and transmit a central light ray propagating through and emitted from the first waveguide end of the optical waveguide (clearly shown in at least figs. 10), and the redirecting surface is configured to receive the central light ray transmitted by the input surface along a first direction and redirect the received central light ray along a second direction different from the first direction (clearly shown in at least figs. 10), the redirected central light ray exiting the optics array as an output central light ray through the output surface (clearly shown in at least figs. 10; see at least col. 9, lines 34-67).
However, MacDonald is silent on the above support portion being attached to the substrate. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to merely apply an adhesive to the surface of the support portion to be attached to the substrate for purpose of stability in coupling optical beam therebetween the unitary optics array and the substrate.
The arguments presented in in rejection of claim 1, including the obviousness and motivation are incorporated in rejection of the following claims as follows:
2. (Original) The optical assembly of claim 1, wherein the support portion covers at least a portion of at least one optical waveguide in the plurality of optical waveguides (clearly shown in at least figs. 10).
3. (Original) The optical assembly of claim 1, wherein the support portion covers at least a portion of each optical waveguide in the plurality of optical waveguides (clearly shown in at least figs. 10.
4. (Original) The optical assembly of claim 1, wherein the portion of the major top surface of the substrate covered by the support portion of the optics array is on a lateral side of the plurality of optical waveguides (clearly shown in at least figs. 100.
5. (Original) The optical assembly of claim 1, wherein the support portion leaves the optical waveguides in the plurality of optical waveguides uncovered (clearly shown in at least figs. 10).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 6-12 are allowable because the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious, respectively, ‘wherein at least one of the optical waveguides in the plurality of optical waveguides is a ridge waveguide protruding from the major top surface of the substrate, and wherein the support portion of the optics array comprises at least one groove receiving at least a portion of the at least one of the optical waveguides therein’, ‘wherein the substrate comprises a minor surface extending from a major surface of the substrate along a thickness direction of the substrate, and wherein the first waveguide ends of the optical waveguides are offset rearwardly from the minor surface along lengths of the optical waveguides’. ‘wherein the substrate comprises a minor surface extending from a major surface of the substrate along a thickness direction of the substrate, wherein the optics array comprises a stop surface disposed proximate and facing the minor surface of the substrate, and wherein the stop and input surfaces of the optics array are offset relative to each other along lengths of the optical waveguides’, wherein the support portion and the major top surface of the substrate covered by the support portion define a gap therebetween that extends laterally across the optical waveguides in the plurality of optical waveguides’, ‘wherein the support portion comprises a pair of opposing shoulders extending from a bottom surface of the support portion, the shoulders defining a recessed portion therebetween, each shoulder resting on the major top surface of the substrate on a corresponding lateral side of the plurality of the waveguides, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the base claim.
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
Prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. In accordance with MPEP 707.05 the following references are pertinent in rejection of this application since they provide substantially the same information disclosure as this patent does. These references are:
US 20160370544 A1
US 20160252687 A1
US 20040129949 A1
US 20190033542 A1
US 20200378865 A1
US 12461321 B2
US 10209452 B1
US 20030142896 A1
US 5416861 A
CA 2252134 A1
US 6005993 A
US 10345542 B2
US 20170184802 A1
US 20140050442 A1
US 20200225401 A1
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Thomas A Hollweg whose telephone number is (571)270-1739. The examiner can normally be reached on 9-19.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Thomas Hollweg can be reached on571-270-1739. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KAVEH C KIANNI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights