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 .
Claim Objections
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 19 and 20 are objected for being presented in dependent form but failing to contain a reference to a claim previously set forth.
Specifically, claim 19 is set forth as depending upon itself (claim 19), while
claim 20 is set forth as depending upon a non-existent and not previously set forth claim, claim 26.
For examination purposes, Examiner interprets both claims 19 and 20 as individually depending upon claim 18.
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, 2, 4-9, 12, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2023/0130467 (“POLOMOFF”) in view of US 2022/0342150 (“KARHADE”).
Regarding claims 1 and 6, KOLOMOFF teaches a photonic assembly (100), comprising: a substrate (146), including: a core (116) having a surface, wherein a material of the core includes glass (pars. [0027], [0036]); and a dielectric material (140; par. [0032]) on a portion of the surface of the core (FIG. 2), the dielectric material including conductive pathways (par. [0032]); a photonic integrated circuit (PIC) (112) electrically coupled to the conductive pathways in the dielectric material (pars. [0030]-[0034]); a first optical component (118A) between the PIC and the surface of the core (FIG. 2); and a second optical component (118B) coupled to the core, wherein the second optical component is optically coupled to the PIC by an optical pathway through the core and the first optical component (FIGs. 1, 2).
POLOMOFF does not teach that the first optical component is coupled to the surface of the core and to the PIC by optical glue or by fusion bonding. KARHADE teaches an optical component (138) coupled to a core and PIC (102) by optical glue (140). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to modify the optical component of POLOMOFF so as to be coupled to the core and to the PIC by optical glue, as taught by KARHADE. The motivation would have been to adhere the optical component to the core while permitting optical signals to pass through (par. [0061]).
Regarding claim 18, KOLOMOFF teaches a photonic assembly (100), comprising: a substrate (146), including: a core (116) having a surface, wherein a material of the core includes glass (pars. [0027], [0036]); and a dielectric material (140; par. [0032]) on a portion of the surface of the core (FIG. 2), the dielectric material including conductive pathways (pars. [0030]-[0034]); a photonic integrated circuit (PICs) (112) electrically coupled to the conductive pathways in the dielectric material (pars. [0030]-[0034]); a first optical component (118a), between the PIC and the surface of the core (FIG. 2); and a second optical component (118b) coupled to the core, wherein the second optical component is optically coupled to the PIC by optical pathways through the core and the first optical component (FIGs. 1, 2).
POLOMOFF does not teach that the first optical component is coupled to the surface of the core and to the PIC by optical glue or by fusion bonding. KARHADE teaches an optical component (138) coupled to a core and PIC (102) by optical glue (140). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to modify the optical component of POLOMOFF so as to be coupled to the core and to the PIC by optical glue, as taught by KARHADE. The motivation would have been to adhere the optical component to the core while permitting optical signals to pass through (par. [0061]).
The additional limitations appear to merely involve duplication. It has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to duplicate the parts of POLOMOFF in view of KARHADE as set forth in the instant claim.
Regarding claims 2 and 19, POLOMOFF teaches that the first optical component includes a glass block, a glass block with a reflector, a glass block with a curved surface, a glass block with a mirror reflector, a glass block with a multi-directional reflector, a glass block with a waveguide, a glass block with a laser written waveguide, an optical lens, a micro-lens, a planar lens, or a gradient-index (GRIN) lens, and combinations thereof (par. [0030]).
Regarding claim 4, POLOMOFF teaches that the optical pathway includes a waveguide through the core (FIG. 2; par. [0038]).
Regarding claim 5, POLOMOFF teaches that the optical pathway includes a waveguide through the first optical component (FIG. 2; par. [0038]).
Regarding claims 7, 8, and 12, POLOMOFF in view of KARHADE renders obvious the limitations of the base claim 1. The additional limitations appear to merely involve duplication. It has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to duplicate the parts of POLOMOFF in view of KARHADE as set forth in the instant claims.
Regarding claim 9, POLOMOFF teaches that the second optical component is optically coupled, at the lateral surface of the core, to the optical pathway (FIG. 2).
Claims 3 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over POLOMOFF in view of KARHADE as applied to claims 1 and 18, respectively, above, and further in view of US 2022/0244465 (“WINZER”).
POLOMOFF in view of KARHADE renders obvious the limitations of the respective base claims. POLOMOFF does not teach that the plurality of second optical components includes a fiber connector. WINZER teaches an optical component (950, 983, 988) coupled to a PIC (896), wherein the optical component is a fiber connector (pars. [0521], [0528]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to modify the device of POLOMOFF so as to comprise a fiber connector, as taught by WINZER. The motivation would have been to permit optical coupling to outside optical and optoelectronic devices.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over POLOMOFF in view of KARHADE as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of
US 2021/0041649 (“BRUSBERG”).
POLOMOFF in view of KARHADE renders obvious the limitations of the base claim 1. POLOMOFF does not teach an IC that is electrically coupled to the PIC by the conductive pathways in the dielectric material. BRUSBERG teaches an IC (562, 662) that is electrically coupled to a PIC (570, 670) by conductive pathways in a dielectric material (534, 634). I would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to modify the device of POLOMOFF such that an IC is electrically coupled to the PIC by the conductive pathways in the dielectric material, as taught by BRUSBERG. The motivation would have been to allow for application-0specific electronic connectivity (pars. [0054], [0060]).
Claims 13, 14, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over POLOMOFF in view of KARHADE and in view of BRUSBERG.
Regarding claim 13, POLOMOFF teaches a photonic assembly (100), comprising: a substrate (146), including: a core (116) having a first surface, an opposing second surface, and a lateral surface substantially perpendicular to the first and second surfaces, wherein a material of the core includes glass (pars. [0027], [0036]); and a dielectric (140) with conductive traces on a portion of the second surface of the core (par. [0032]); a photonic integrated circuit (PIC) (112) electrically coupled to the conductive traces of the dielectric at the second surface of the core (pars. [0030]-[0034]); a first optical component (118a) between to the PIC and the second surface of the core; and a second optical component (118b) at the lateral surface of the core, wherein the second optical component is optically coupled to the PIC by an optical pathway through the first optical component and the core (FIGs. 1, 2).
POLOMOFF does not teach that the first optical component is coupled to the surface of the core and to the PIC by optical glue or by fusion bonding. KARHADE teaches an optical component (138) coupled to a core and PIC (102) by optical glue (140). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to modify the optical component of POLOMOFF so as to be coupled to the core and to the PIC by optical glue, as taught by KARHADE. The motivation would have been to adhere the optical component to the core while permitting optical signals to pass through (par. [0061]).
POLOMOFF also does not teach an IC that is electrically coupled to the PIC by the conductive pathways in the dielectric material. BRUSBERG teaches an IC (562, 662) that is electrically coupled to a PIC (570, 670) by conductive pathways in a dielectric material (534, 634). I would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to modify the device of POLOMOFF such that an IC is electrically coupled to the PIC by the conductive pathways in the dielectric material, as taught by BRUSBERG. The motivation would have been to allow for application-0specific electronic connectivity (pars. [0054], [0060]).
Regarding claim 14, POLOMOFF teaches that the first optical component includes a glass block, a glass block with a reflector, a glass block with a curved surface, a glass block with a mirror reflector, a glass block with a multi-directional reflector, a glass block with a waveguide, a glass block with a laser written waveguide, an optical lens, a micro-lens, a planar lens, or a gradient-index (GRIN) lens, and combinations thereof (par. [0030]).
Regarding claims 16 and 17, POLOMOFF in view of KARHADE and in view of WINZER renders obvious the limitations of the base claim 13. The additional limitations appear to merely involve duplication. It has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to duplicate the parts of POLOMOFF in view of KARHADE as set forth in the instant claims.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over POLOMOFF in view of KARHADE and in view of BRUSBERG as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of WINZER.
POLOMOFF in view of KARHADE and in view of BRUSBERG renders obvious the limitations of claim 13. POLOMOFF does not teach that the plurality of second optical components includes a fiber connector. WINZER teaches an optical component (950, 983, 988) coupled to a PIC (896), wherein the optical component is a fiber connector (pars. [0521], [0528]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to modify the device of POLOMOFF so as to comprise a fiber connector, as taught by WINZER. The motivation would have been to permit optical coupling to outside optical and optoelectronic devices.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JERRY M BLEVINS whose telephone number is (571)272-8581. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday.
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.
/JERRY M BLEVINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874