18DETAILED 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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/06/2026 has been entered.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Korea on 04/06/2023. A certified copy of the KR10-2022-0148052 application was received 08/09/2023.
Joint Inventors
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.
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendment filed 07/06/026 has been considered and entered.
The claim objections set forth in the office action received 02/06/2026 is withdrawn in view of the applicant’s amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments (Pages 5-7 of the remarks received 07/06/2026) with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1 and 6 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but are moot in view of modified grounds for rejection. The amended limitations are taught by Yamaura (US 6459068 B1).
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claims 1-3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goddard (US 20230324620 A1) in view of Yamaura (US 6459068 B1) and in further view of Gui (US 20210072462 A1).
With regards to claim 1, Goddard discloses a microscale optical structure comprising:
a substrate (Goddard/Paragraph 26/Lines 2-4);
a first layer (Fig1b/First layer 104; Paragraph 26/Lines 2-4) formed on the substrate;
an optical function unit formed using a second layer (Fig1b/Optical function unit 100) formed on the first layer to provide one or more functions of a set comprising: optical coupling functions, optical distribution functions, and wavelength division functions with the substrate and the first layer; and
at least one optical coupling cable (Fig2/Optical coupling cable 102) formed to include a cable end portion formed to come into direct contact with a preset region on the second layer (Figs1a-c/Cable end portion [End of element 102 facing element 100] and preset region as indicated in fig 1c) to transmit and receive an optical signal to and from an optical waveguide of the optical function unit,
Goddard is silent regarding using air surrounding the at least one optical coupling cable as a cladding and whether or not a material content at the cable end portion is different from a material content at a center portion of the at least one optical coupling cable. However, the practices of configuring optical elements missing from the disclosure of Goddard exist in the art as exemplified by Yamamura and Gui.
Goddard discloses a waveguide in the form of an optical coupling cable, but is silent regarding cladding. Yamaura teaches a waveguide with air cladding (Yamaura/Fig14/Paragraph 186). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the at least one optical coupling cable of Goddard such that the optical waveguide used surrounding air as cladding since doing so would facilitate producing the optical coupling cable with fewer coating steps.
Goddard and Yamaura together disclose an optical structure wherein an end of an optical cable is optically coupled to and comes into direct contact with a preset region of an optical structure. Gui teaches an optical cable wherein a material content at the cable end portion is different from a material content at a center portion of the at least one optical coupling cable (Gui/Fig2a/Optical cable 10, Cable end portion 12, and Center portion [Region at interface between sections of element 10 defined by L1 and L2 respectively). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the optical cable of Goddard and Yamaura such that a material content at the cable end portion is different from a material content at a center portion of the cable as suggested by Gui, since doing so increase the ease with which the fiber and region could be aligned and reduce signal losses at the interface between the two elements.
With regards to claim 2, Goddard, Yamaura, and Gui together disclose the microscale optical structure of claim 1, wherein
the optical function unit is
designed to have a preset shape to provide a function of the optical waveguide with the substrate and the first layer (Goddard/Fig1a/Shape element 100), and
formed by including at least one optical signal input unit and at least one optical signal output unit (Goddard/Fig1d/At least one input unit and at least one output unit [as indicated below]).
PNG
media_image1.png
332
544
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regards to claim 3, Goddard, Yamaura, and Gui together disclose the microscale optical structure of claim 2, wherein at least one of the at least one optical signal input unit and the at least one optical signal output unit includes a grating coupler (Goddard/Fig1d/Grating coupler [Grating portion of element 100]), and the grating coupler is formed without interruption to come into close contact with the optical coupling cable (Goddard/Fig1b) and provides an optical path between the optical signal input unit and the optical signal output unit (Goddard/Fig1d).
With regards to claim 7, Goddard, Yamaura, and Gui together disclose the microscale optical structure of claim 1. Goddard does not explicitly state that the optical function unit is configured to perform wavelength division demultiplexing by directing different wavelength components of an input optical signal to different optical coupling cables, but does disclose the optical function unit as a grating with an area capable of accommodating at least a portion of more than one optical coupling cable (Goddard/Figs1a-d) where gratings are known to offer the capability of performing wavelength division demultiplexing as evidenced by Gunn (US 7194166 B1).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goddard (US 20230324620 A1), Yamaura (US 6459068 B1), and Gui (US 20210072462 A1) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Tanguay (US 5568574 A).
With regards to claim 4, Goddard, Yamaura, and Gui together disclose the microscale structure of claim 3, wherein
the at least one optical coupling cable includes a first optical coupling cable (Goddard/Fig1a-d/Optical coupling cable 102),
the first optical coupling cable is formed to come into close contact (Goddard/Fig1b) with a first optical port unit which is a preset region on the second layer, and
the at least one optical coupling cable is designed so that an optical signal input to the at least one optical signal input unit is distributed and transmitted to the first optical coupling cable according to preset conditions (Goddard/Fig1b).
Goddard, Yamaura, and Gui are silent regarding the presence of additional optical couplings. However, the practice of incorporating more than one optical coupling in an optical structure exists in the art as exemplified by Tanguay. Goddard, Yamaura, Gui, and Tanguay are considered to be analogous in the field of photonic interconnects.
Tanguay teaches an optical structure with multiple optical couplings designed so that an optical signal (Tanguay/Fig3/Optical signal defined by arrows) input to an optical signal input unit (Tanguay/Fig3/Side of device closest to label 10) is distributed and transmitted to each of the first optical coupling (Tanguay/Fig3/30a) and the second optical coupling (Tanguay/Fig3/30b) according to preset conditions. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to make use of multiples of the optical couplings disclosed by Goddard, Yamaura, and Gui as suggested by Tanguay, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goddard (US 20230324620 A1), Yamaura (US 6459068 B1), and Gui (US 20210072462 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tanguay (US 5568574 A).
With regards to claim 5, Goddard, Yamaura, and Gui together disclose microscale optical structure of claim 1 as previously discussed, wherein
the at least one optical coupling cable includes a first optical coupling cable (Goddard/Fig1a-d/Optical coupling cable 102),
the first optical coupling cable is formed to come into close contact with a first optical port unit, which is a preset region on the second layer (Goddard/Fig1b/Bottom of element 102),
and thus the at least one optical coupling cable is designed so that an optical signal input to the optical signal input unit is distributed and transmitted to the first optical coupling cable, according to preset conditions (Goddard/Fig1b).
Goddard, Yamaura, and Gui are silent regarding the presence of additional optical couplings. However, the practice of incorporating more than one optical coupling in an optical structure exists in the art as exemplified by Tanguay. Goddard, Yamaura, Gui, and Tanguay are considered to be analogous in the field of photonic interconnects.
Tanguay teaches an optical structure with multiple optical couplings designed so that an optical signal (Tanguay/Fig3/Optical signal defined by arrows) input to an optical signal input unit (Tanguay/Fig3/Side of device closest to label 10) is distributed and transmitted to each of the first optical coupling (Tanguay/Fig3/30a) and the second optical coupling (Tanguay/Fig3/30b) according to preset conditions. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to make use of multiples of the optical coupling cables disclosed by Goddard, Yamaura, and Gui as suggested by Tanguay, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goddard (US 20230324620 A1) in view of Yamaura (US 6459068 B1), Gui (US 20210072462 A1) and Mathal (US 8391656 B2).
With regards to claim 6, Goddard discloses an optical module comprising:
an optical structure including
a substrate (Goddard/Paragraph 26/Lines 2-4),
a first layer (Fig1b/First layer 104; Paragraph 26/Lines 2-4) formed on the substrate,
an optical function unit formed using a second layer (Fig1b/Optical function unit 100) formed on the first layer to provide various optical functions one or more members of a group comprising: optical coupling functions, optical distribution functions, and wavelength division functions with the substrate and the first layer, and
at least one optical coupling cable (Fig1a-d/Optical coupling cable 102) formed to include a cable end portion (Figs1a-c/Cable end portion [End of element 102 facing element 100] and preset region as indicated in fig 1c) to transmit and receive an optical signal to and from an optical waveguide;
Goddard is silent regarding using air surrounding the at least one optical coupling cable as a cladding and whether or not a material content at the cable end portion is different from a material content at a center portion of the at least one optical coupling cable. However, the practices of configuring optical elements missing from the disclosure of Goddard exist in the art as exemplified by Yamamura and Gui.
Goddard discloses a waveguide in the form of an optical coupling cable, but is silent regarding cladding. Yamaura teaches a waveguide with air cladding (Yamaura/Fig14/Paragraph 186). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the at least one optical coupling cable of Goddard such that the at least one optical coupling cable itself served as a core of an optical waveguide and used surrounding air as cladding since doing so would allow for the at least at least one optical coupling cable to be produced with fewer coating steps.
Goddard and Yamaura together disclose an optical structure wherein an end of an optical cable is optically coupled to and comes into direct contact with a preset region of an optical structure. Gui teaches an optical cable wherein a material content at the cable end portion is different from a material content at a center portion of the at least one optical coupling cable (Gui/Fig2a/Optical cable 10, Cable end portion 12, and Center portion [Region at interface between sections of element 10 defined by L1 and L2 respectively). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the optical cable of Goddard and Yamaura such that a material content at the cable end portion is different from a material content at a center portion of the cable as suggested by Gui, since doing so increase the ease with which the fiber and region could be aligned and reduce signal losses at the interface between the two elements.
Goddard, Yamaura, and Gui are silent regarding
a photoelectric conversion element unit optically coupled to the optical structure to convert the optical signal output from the optical structure to an electrical signal;
an electrical signal amplification unit electrically connected to the photoelectric conversion element unit to change a waveform of the electrical signal received from the photoelectric conversion element unit; and
a controller electrically connected to at least one of the optical structure, the photoelectric conversion element unit, and the electrical signal amplification unit to control a function of the at least one of the optical structure, the photoelectric conversion element unit, and the electrical signal amplification unit.
However, the practices of configuring optical elements missing from the disclosures of Goddard, Yamaura, and Gui exist in the art as exemplified by Mathal.
Mathal teaches an optical module including:
a photoelectric conversion element unit (Mathal/Fig1/Photoelectric conversion element unit 114 [Optoelectronic converter]) optically coupled to an optical structure to convert an optical signal output from the optical structure to an electrical signal (Mathal/Fig2; Column 3/Lines 56-60);
an electrical signal amplification unit electrically connected to the photoelectric conversion element unit to change a waveform of the electrical signal received from the photoelectric conversion element unit (Mathal/Fig2/Column 3/Lines 8-10/”…amplifiers…”); and
a controller electrically connected to the optical structure, the photoelectric conversion element unit, and the electrical signal amplification unit to control a function of the optical structure, the photoelectric conversion element unit, and the electrical signal amplification unit (Mathal/Fig1/Column 3/Lines 8-10/”…automatic gain control circuits…”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include optoelectronic components suggested by Mathal within the optical structure disclosed by Goddard, Yamaura and Gui since doing so would apply a greater degree of control over the operation of the optical structure and generally increase the breadth of the structure’s capabilities.
Conclusion
This prior art, made of record, but not relied upon, is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure since the following references have similar structure and/or use similar structure and/or similar optical elements to what is disclosed and/or claimed in the instant application:
Gunn (US 7194166 B1) [Fig5; “Grating coupler demultiplexer”]
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Marc E Manheim whose telephone number is (703)756-1873. The examiner can normally be reached 6:30am - 5pm E.T., Monday - Tuesday and Thursday - 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 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.
/MARC E MANHEIM/Examiner, Art Unit 2874
/THOMAS A HOLLWEG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights