DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to applicant’s amendment filed on March 12, 2026. Claims 1- 28 are pending.
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.
Claims 1-2, 5-9, 11-12, 15-16, 19-23, and 25-26, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Filipowicz et al. (US 9,846,280 B2, herein “Filipowicz”).
Regarding claims 1 and 15, Filipowicz discloses an optical fiber array device (30 in Fig. 3), said optical fiber array device comprising: a fiber base (flange 38), enabled to hold multilayer positioning sheet stack (precision output element 34 composes of three layers 48, 52, and 50, Col. 7 line 64 to Col. 8, line 14);
said multilayer positioning sheet stack (precision output element 34) comprising a plurality of channels (apertures 36), each of said channels formed by at least a positioning hole (vias 58) and a tapered hole (lead-in openings 58-O), wherein each tapered hole has an entry diameter larger than the corresponding positioning hole and narrows toward the positioning hole to guide and seat a fiber, wherein the multilayer positioning sheet stack comprises a plurality of sheets comprising at least a positioning sheet (48), a supporting sheet (52), and a guiding sheet (50);
a plurality of fibers (100) or fiber bundles, each of said fibers or fiber bundles fixed in one of said positioning hole of said multilayer positioning sheet stack;
a guide hole array block (fiber guide block 32) disposed adjacent to said multilayer positioning sheet stack (precision output element 34), wherein the guide hole array block (fiber guide block 32) comprises a plurality of tapered entry holes (entrance 33-0) larger than the tapered holes (58-O) of the multilayer positioning sheet stack, to facilitate fiber insertion and alignment.
The examiner notes, the amended limitations: of a positioning sheet, a supporting sheet, and a guiding sheet do not recite limitations that would further define each sheet. Accordingly, the examiner considers the three layers in the precision output element 34 stack to read-on the positioning sheet (48), supporting sheet (52), and guiding sheet (50) in the same order. See replicated Figs. 3 and 6 below.
PNG
media_image1.png
428
695
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
294
305
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, Filipowicz does not explicitly disclose a lens array comprising a plurality of lenses, each lens of said lens array aligned with one channel of said plurality of channels.
In discussing the state of the art, Filipowicz teaches prior arts using lens array (16) comprising a plurality of lenses (28), each lens of said lens array aligned with one channel (24) of said plurality of channels (via the back side of the array substrate 26) providing collimated output signals that are thereafter directed toward a receiving device such as MEMS array (Col. 5, lines 23-44).
It would have been obvious to one having skills in the art to recognize the prefabricated lens array having predetermined pitched matching the channels of the of the positioning sheet can be made interchangeably with the individually polished fiber terminations of Filipowicz’s invention. One would be motivated to interchange the lens array with the individually polished fiber termination to increase manufacturing efficiency where precision has a lower tolerance.
The examiner notes, the method steps of claims 15-28 are not patentably distinct from the product claims 1-14, as the steps such as fixing, forming, aligning are necessary in assembling the function device. As such, the method claims are rejected in the similar manner as the product claims.
PNG
media_image3.png
383
625
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claims 2 and 16. Filipowicz discloses the multilayer positioning sheet stack (precision output element 34) is made from silicon (Col. 3, lines 29-45).
Claims 5 and 19. Filipowicz discloses the fiber base flange is made from a material (stainless steel, Col. 6, lines 36-38) with a low thermal expansion coefficient.
Claims 6 and 20. Filipowicz discloses each one of said plurality of channels (36) comprises a hole (60) located between said positioning hole (58) and said tapered hole (56), such that said hole has a diameter that is larger than the diameter of the positioning hole and larger than the smallest diameter of said tapered hole.
PNG
media_image4.png
473
634
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claims 7 and 21. The device according to claim 1, wherein said multilayer positioning sheet stack comprises MxN channels arranged in an MxN array (Fig. 7).
Claims 8 and 22. The device according to claim 1, wherein said positioning hole and/or said tapered hole are made using an etching process (Col. 7, lines 53-63).
Claims 9 and 23. The device according to claim 1, wherein each of said fibers or fiber bundles is fixed in one of said positioning holes with glue (Step 180 in Fig. 14).
Claims 11 and 25. The device according to claim 1, wherein the fiber base flange is enabled to hold said lens array. By modifying the shoulder (44) of the flange (38) to recess deeper into the interior of the flange during the machining process such that the flange would be capable of holding the lens array.
PNG
media_image5.png
279
300
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claims 12 and 26. The device according to claim 1, wherein the fiber base flange is enabled to hold a guide hole array block (34). See Fig. 4 above.
Claims 3-4, 10, 14, 17-18, 24, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Filipowicz in view of Suzuki et al. (US 2003/0142909 A1, herein “Suzuki”).
Regarding claims 3-4 and 17-18, Filipowicz discloses the optical fiber array device of claim 1 wherein the multilayer positioning sheet stack is made from silicon and further teaches the precision output element (34) is formed as a multilayer silicon-based element such that they would have similar coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) (Col. 7, line 64 to Col. 8, line 14).
However, Filipowicz is silent to the material of the lens array.
Suzuki teaches an optical fiber array with lenses wherein the collimator lens 82 constitute a microlens array 80 in which the surfaces of the plates made of silicon or glass then curved to form microlenses (Para [0032]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to exchange the individually polished fiber terminations with a silicon lens array to match the material the multilayer positioning sheet stack (34) such that the CTE of the lens array and the multilayer positioning sheet stack would have matching CTE for thermal stability. One motivation for having matching material or matching CTE is to prevent the lens array from thermal expansion and contraction which may cause misalignment.
Regarding claims 10, 14, 24, and 28, Filipowicz discloses the invention of claim 1 and claim 15, but Filipowicz does not teach the lens array is bonded directly onto said multilayer positioning sheet stack.
Suzuki teaches an optical fiber array with lenses wherein a refraction index matching agent acting as an adhesive between the wall of the tapered through-hole (55) and the optical fiber (90) and between the tip surface of the optical fiber (90) and the collimator lens (82) (Figs. 1-4). Note, base plate (21) is considered the “positioning sheet” in Suzuki’s invention.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to recognize the lens array is bonded directly to said multilayer positioning sheet stack, as shown by Suzuki would have been modifiable to the invention of Filipowicz since index matching resin can be cured to function as an adhesive as taught by Suzuki. One would be motivated to bond the lens directly to the positioning sheet to couple light efficiently from the fiber terminus to the collimating lens array.
Claims 13 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Filipowicz in view of Nakama et al. (US 6,766,076 B2, herein “Nakama”).
Filipowicz discloses the invention of claim 1, but does not disclose a spacer between the lens arrays and said multilayer positioning sheet stack.
Nakama teaches and shown in Fig. 2, an optical fiber array wherein the fiber bundle (4) is inserted into the holes (5) positioning sheet (3) such that a spacer (2) is provided between the positioning sheet and the lens array (1). Nakama further teaches the spacer (2) is selected for having a thickness and refractive index which satisfies the relationship 2 x fL x nh > th > fL x nh. This relationship allows the image output from the lens to have an increasing magnification at an image plane (Col. 5, lines 12-21).
PNG
media_image6.png
396
518
media_image6.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to recognize the fiber array embodiment as taught by Nakama is used in magnifying the projecting image. One would be motivated project a magnified image in applications such as a mobile phone display.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 12, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues the amendments to Claims 1 and 15 overcame the obviousness rejection to Filipowicz. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The amendment identifying the three different layers in the multilayer positioning sheet stack does not overcome the precision output element 34 of Filipowicz. The recitation of the positioning sheet, supporting sheet, and guiding sheet do not further define any structure that is distinct from the top guiding layer 48, spacer 52, and bottom guiding layer 50 of Filipowicz invention. For this reason, the examiner maintains the ground of rejection over Filipowicz for claims 1-2, 5-9, 11-12, 15-16, 19-23, and 25-26.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. PTO-892:A-F.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Erin D Chiem whose telephone number is (571)272-3102. The examiner can normally be reached 10 am - 6 pm.
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 A. 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.
/ERIN D CHIEM/Examiner, Art Unit 2874
/THOMAS A HOLLWEG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights