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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejected claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely the reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 7 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. The term “a similar optical-grade polymer material” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “a similar optical-grade polymer material” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 4 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sengupta (US 11,133,870 B2).
Sengupta teaches:
1. A photonic integrated circuit structure (Fig. 12), comprising:
a substrate (122J) comprising a surface (see Fig. 12);
a waveguide structure (150) being disposed over said surface (bottom half of 122) of said substrate (122J) and being comprised of a receiving end (entrance end of 150-2) and a transmitting end (exit end of 150-1),
wherein said transmitting end is comprised of an end of an optical fiber (150-1) disposed above said substrate (bottom half of 122J), said transmitting end having a transmitting end core (part of 150-1) with a transmitting end core diameter (C8 L23-61), and
wherein said receiving end is comprised of a respective end of a respective optical fiber (150-2), said receiving end having a receiving end core with a receiving end core diameter (C17 L59 – C18 L12); and
a spot size converter (130J) being disposed at a side of said receiving end of said waveguide structure (see Fig. 12) and comprising a concave mirror (130J-1) and a concave curved mirror (130J-1’), said concave mirror (130J-1) having a concave curvature radius (see Fig. 12), said curved mirror (130J-1’) having a curved curvature radius (see Fig. 12),
wherein said concave mirror (130J-1) and said curved mirror (130J-1’) are disposed opposite each other (see Fig. 12),
wherein said concave mirror (130J-1) is arranged to reflect a parallel beam from said transmitting end (see Fig. 12),
wherein said curved mirror (130J-1’) is arranged relative to said concave mirror (130J-1) to reflect said first reflected beam so as to direct a second reflected beam parallel to said receiving end of said waveguide structure (150), said second reflected beam having a second reflected beam spot size (C17 L63 – C18 L8),
wherein said second reflected beam spot size corresponds to said receiving end core diameter (C17 L63 – C18 L8),
wherein said transmitting end core waveguide structure (150) is comprised of a core (part of 150), and
wherein said first reflected beam is configured to propagate along a non-guided optical path before being reflected by said curved mirror (130J-1’) into said second reflected beam (see Fig. 12, there is no material between the mirrors).
Regarding part of claim 1 and claim 3: Sengupta does not say the mirrors have a common focus, but Sengupta does teach the mirrors focus light from the first mirror to direct and compress the light into the second fiber (C18 L3-14). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to try having a common focus located in from of a reflection surface of the curved mirror for so as to converge a first reflected beam at said common focus, since it has been held that “it is obvious to try - choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success” is a rationale for arriving at a conclusion of obviousness. In re KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. As discussed, Sengupta teaches using the mirrors to focus light from one fiber to another, so a person of ordinary skill would predict and identify a common focus as a design that would reasonably succeed to focus light from one fiber to another in a converged manner.
Sengupta does not state a ratio of said concave curvature radius and said curved curvature radius being equal to a ratio of said transmitting end core diameter and said receiving end core diameter. Below is the well-known "mirror equation", which can be found in most introductory physics textbooks.
1/do + 1/di = 1/f = 2/R; where f = focal length, R = radius of curvature, do = object distance, and di = image distance
The ratio of do to di is the negative of the magnification. Applying this equation to each mirror and determining the ratios for both the mirror curvatures and the image magnifications shows that ratio of the mirror curvatures will be equal to ratio of the image magnifications. The ratio of the image magnifications is the ratio of the input and output beams of spot size converter.
To achieve optimal light transfer, the light beam diameter should be nearly equal to the mode field diameter (MFD). The MFD is normally slightly larger than the core diameter. Thus, the desired light beam radius ratio will be approximately equal to the waveguide core ratio.
Putting all of those factors together yields the mirror radius of curvature ratio being equal to the light beam radius ratio and, also, equal to the waveguide core ratio.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the structure of Sengupta with a mirror radius of curvature ratio that is equal to the applicable waveguide core ratio to maximize signal transmission.
Sengupta does not state the core of the fibers is made of silicon. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to try using a silicon core for an optical fiber, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Silicon based optical fibers are the most widely used type in the art.
Regarding claim 4: The embodiment of Fig. 12 of Sengupta does not teach wherein the curved mirror is convex, and wherein the common focus is located behind a reflection surface of said curved mirror. Sengupta does teach an embodiment (Fig. 14) that uses convex mirrors (C21 L3-21). The two embodiments of Sengupta are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, coupling optical fibers.
At the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the structure of Fig. 12 of Sengupta to use convex lenses with the motivation for doing so would have been to allow the device to be used in a wide variety of optical mode converting (Sengupta, C21 L3-21).
6. The photonic integrated circuit structure of claim 1, wherein said concave mirror (130J-1) is made integral with said curved mirror (130J-1’) of said spot size converter (both are made from a part of 122J-1).
Regarding claim 7: Sengupta discloses the claimed invention except for the mirrors being made of one of the materials listed in claim 7. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to try using known optical polymers (such as PC or PMMA) for the substrate in Sengupta, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Sengupta teaches the substrate may be formed of any suitable material that may be processed using semiconductor processing techniques, MEMS processing techniques and/or micro-machining fabrication techniques (C10 L65 – C11 L20). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize PC and PMMA as an alternative material for the substrate given the teaching in Sengupta that provides for alternate materials other than silicon.
8. The photonic integrated circuit structure of claim 1, wherein said concave mirror is coated with a reflective material selected from a group consisting silver (Ag) (C19 L3-14).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN A LEPISTO whose telephone number is (571)272-1946. The examiner can normally be reached on 8AM-5PM EST M-F.
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 on 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 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.
/RYAN A LEPISTO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874