DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention IIIf (i.e., claims 14-15, 18-20) in the reply filed on 3/31/26 is acknowledged.
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.
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Witzens et al. (WO 2021170200; “Witzens”).
Regarding claim 14, Witzens teaches an integrated circuit (IC) photonic package substrate 300, comprising: a glass body 300 with an upper surface [e.g., top surface in fig. 1(a)] and a lower surface [e.g., bottom surface of element 300 in fig. 1(a); lens 320B resides on the bottom surface]; at least one optical path [e.g., horizontal path 400 in fig. 1(a)] and within the glass body [e.g., fig. 1(a)] and extending generally parallel to the upper or lower surface [e.g., fig. 1(a)]; at least one mirror 310 intersecting the optical path within the substrate 300 and disposed transversely to the optical path [e.g., fig. 1(a)]; and at least one vertical optical coupler 320B at the upper or lower surface and optically coupled to the at least one mirror 310/330/340 [e.g., p. 13 lines 1-18; fig. 1(a)].
Thus claim 14 is met.
Regarding claim 15, Witzens teaches the substrate of claim 14 (see above), wherein the mirror 310/330 comprises a surface of at least one of a reflective metal [e.g., fig. 1(a); p. 44 lines 26-30], metal alloy, silver, and silver alloy.
Thus claim 15 is met.
Claim(s) 14, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Psaila et al. (US 20240027699; “Psaila”).
Regarding claim 14, Psaila teaches an integrated circuit (IC) photonic package substrate, comprising: a glass body 102 with an upper surface and a lower surface [e.g., fig. 4]; at least one optical path 302 within the glass body 102 and extending generally parallel to the upper or lower surface [e.g., fig. 4]; at least one mirror 402 [e.g., fig. 4; ¶ 0039] intersecting the optical path within the substrate and disposed transversely to the optical path [e.g., fig. 4]; and at least one vertical optical coupler 404 at the upper or lower surface and optically coupled to the at least one mirror 402 [e.g., fig. 4].
Thus claim 14 is met.
Regarding claim 15, Psaila teaches the substrate of claim 14 (see above), wherein the mirror comprises a surface of at least one of a reflective metal (e.g., ¶ 0032 teaches the mirror may be made of reflective metal and ¶ 0039 teaches the mirror in fig. 4 may be a flattened version of mirror 306), metal alloy, silver, and silver alloy.
Thus claim 15 is met.
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.
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(s) 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Psaila et al. (US 20240027699; “Psaila”) as applied to claim 14 above with obviousness evidenced by {OEB} Bidnyk et al. (US 20080226221; “Bidnyk”).
Regarding claim 18, Psaila teaches the substrate of claim 14 (see above 102 rejection), comprising a chamber 308 (e.g., ¶ 0032; fig. 4) with a surface, and a mirror 402 on the surface, and wherein the chamber 308 is behind or in front of the mirror 402 [e.g., fig. 4], wherein the front of the mirror faces the optical path [e.g., fig. 4], and wherein the chamber holds a material {e.g., ¶ 0032: backfilled with any suitable material. Furthermore, Psaila teaches a mirror may occur via total internal reflection {TIR} [e.g., ¶ 0032].
Psaila does not explicitly state the material has a different index of refraction than the index of refraction of the mirror. However, it was well-known for the material to have a different index of refraction than the index of refraction of the mirror at least since a mirror via TIR reflection is produced by a material of different refractive index {RI} filling the chamber and contacting the surface as evidenced by Bidnyk (e.g., Bidnyk ¶ 0020). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the material to have a different index of refraction than the index of refraction of the mirror at least for the purpose of a TIR mirror effect and being able to planarize/fill the chamber with the material to at least protect the internal surfaces.
Thus claim 18 is rejected under Psaila with OEB Bidnyk (“Psaila-Bidnyk”).
Regarding claim 19, Psaila-Bidnyk teaches the substrate of claim 18 (see above).
Psaila-Bidnyk does not explicitly state the mirror is disposed nearer the upper surface or lower surface that is opposite the upper surface or lower surface nearest the at least one vertical optical coupler.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the mirror to be disposed nearer the upper surface or lower surface that is opposite the upper surface or lower surface nearest the at least one vertical optical coupler at least for the purpose of optimizing the distance so the beam waist of the reflected light properly fills the aperture in the case when the vertical optical coupler is a lens [which is the case in Psaila fig. 4] (e.g., see also MPEP §2144.07 Art Recognized Suitability for an Intended Purpose; and/or “optimization of ranges” MPEP §2144.05 and/or MPEP § 2144.04 changes in size/shape involves only routine skill in the art; rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70).
Thus claim 19 is rejected under Psaila-Bidnyk.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 20 is 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.
The prior art, either alone or in combination, does not disclose or render obvious the chamber comprises a collimator wall opposite a mirror in combination with the rest of claim 20.
It is noted that claim 20 is allowable because the unique combination of each and every specific element stated in the claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mr. Michael Mooney whose telephone number is 571-272-2422. The examiner can normally be reached during weekdays, M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Uyen-Chau Le can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Center. Should you have questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). For checking the filing status of an application, please refer to <https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/checking-application-status/check-filing-status-your-patent-application>.
/MICHAEL P MOONEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874