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 .
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 10/14/2025 has been considered and entered.
The objection to claims set forth in the office action received 05/14/2025 is withdrawn in view of the applicant’s amendments.
The rejections under 35 USC 112 set forth in the office action received 05/14/2025 have been withdrawn in view of the applicant’s amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments (Pages 26-31 of the remarks received 10/14/2025) with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1-7 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the claim amendments and the new ground(s) of rejection is made below.
Applicant has argued (Argument summarized in lines 14-24 of the remarks received 10/14/2025) that the amended limitation “…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…” renders the independent claims allowable over the prior art relied upon in the action received 05/14/2025, and that the dependent claims inherit the allowability of the independent claims. Examiner agrees with applicant that the prior art previously relied upon does not disclose or teach the above limitation. However, a new rejection now incorporating the teachings of Gui addresses amended independent claims 1 and 6 (and by extension, all linked dependent claims). Specifically, Gui discloses an optical cable with an end that has a different material content from that of a central portion (See the Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 section of this office action).
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Lines 6-7 of amended claim 1 should read “…one or more functions of a set comprising…”.
Line 5 of amended claim 6 should read “…one or more functions of a set comprising…”.
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 Plantier (US 20190170938 A1) in view of Goddard (US 20230324620 A1) and in further view of Gui (US 20210072462 A1).
With regards to claim 1, Plantier discloses a microscale optical structure comprising:
a substrate (Plantier/Fig2/Substrate 110 [Substrate]);
a first layer (Fig2/First layer 121 [Interlayer]) formed on the substrate;
an optical function unit formed using a second layer (Fig2/Optical function unit defined by elements 122, 131, 132, and 140) formed on the first layer to provide one or more members of a group comprising: optical coupling functions, optical distribution functions, and wavelength division functions (Fig2/Signal input and signal output) with the substrate and the first layer; and
at least one optical coupling cable (Fig2/Optical coupling cable 1010 [Optical fiber]) formed to include a cable end portion (End of element 1010 facing element 100) to transmit and receive an optical signal to and from an optical waveguide (Fig2) of the optical function unit.
Plantier is silent regarding whether or not the cable end portion is in contact with a preset region on the second layer 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 Plantier exist in the art as exemplified by Goddard and Gui.
Plantier and Goddard are considered to be analogous in the field of photonic interconnects. Plantier discloses a microscale optical structure with at least one optical coupling cable and an optical structure in optical communication with said optical cable (Fig2). Goddard teaches an end portion of a cable formed to come into direct contact with a preset region on a layer of an optical structure (Goddard/Fig1b/Bottom of element 102). 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 structure disclosed by Plantier such that the cable end portion was in contact with the uppermost structure layer as suggested by Goddard, since doing so would reduce light losses from transitions to and/or from the end portion.
Plantier, Goddard, and Gui are considered to be analogous in the field of optical fibers. Plantier and Goddard 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 Plantier and Goddard 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, Plantier, Goddard, 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 (Plantier/Fig2/Shape of device and functions defined by optical paths), and
formed by including at least one optical signal input unit (Plantier/Fig2/Input unit circled below [Left]) and at least one optical signal output unit (Plantier/Fig2/Output unit circled below [Right]).
PNG
media_image1.png
312
436
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
312
436
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With regards to claim 3, Plantier, Goddard, 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 (Plantier/Grating coupler 133 [Grating coupler]), 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 (Plantier/Fig2).
With regards to claim 7, Plantier, Goddard and Gui together disclose the optical structure of claim 1, wherein 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 (Plantier/Fig2/Optical function unit defined by elements 122, 131, 132, and 140; Paragraphs 96 and 132 [The disclosed structure has the ability to perform the claimed function; See MPEP 2114 I]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Plantier (US 20190170938 A1) in view of Goddard (US 20230324620 A1) 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, Plantier, Goddard, and Gui together disclose the microscale structure of claim 3, wherein
the at least one optical coupling cable includes a first optical coupling cable (Plantier/Fig2/first optical coupling cable 1010 [Optical fiber]),
the first optical coupling wire 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 (Plantier/Fig2/Path of optical signal in element 232; Conditions defined by structure of device).
Plantier, Goddard, 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. Plantier, Goddard, 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 Plantier, Goddard, 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 Plantier (US 20190170938 A1) in view of Goddard (US 20230324620 A1) 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, Plantier, Goddard, 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 (Plantier/Fig2/first optical coupling cable 1010 [Optical fiber]),
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 (Plantier/Fig2/Path of optical signal in element 232; Conditions defined by structure of device).
Plantier, Goddard, 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. Plantier, Goddard, 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 Plantier, Goddard, 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 Plantier (US 20190170938 A1) in view of Goddard (US 20230324620 A1), in further view of Gui (US 20210072462 A1), and in further view of Mathal (US 8391656 B2).
With regards to claim 6, Plantier discloses an optical module comprising:
an optical structure including
a substrate (Plantier/Fig2/Substrate 110 [Substrate]),
a first layer (Fig2/First layer 121 [Interlayer]) formed on the substrate,
an optical function unit formed using a second layer (Fig2/Optical function unit defined by elements 122, 131, 132, and 140) 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 (Fig2/Signal input and signal output) with the substrate and the first layer, and
at least one optical coupling cable (Fig2/Optical coupling wire 1010 [Optical fiber]) formed to include a cable end portion (End of element 1010 facing element 100) to transmit and receive an optical signal to and from an optical waveguide (Fig2);
Plantier is silent regarding whether or not the cable end portion is in contact with a preset region on the second layer. However, the practice of configuring optical elements missing from the disclosure of Plantier exist in the art as exemplified by Goddard. Plantier and Goddard are considered to be analogous in the field of photonic interconnects.
Goddard teaches an end portion of a cable formed to come into direct close contact with a preset region on a layer of an optical structure (Goddard/Fig1b/Bottom of element 102). 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 structure disclosed by Plantier such that the cable end portion was in contact with the uppermost structure layer as suggested by Goddard, since doing so would reduce light losses from transitions to and/or from the end portion.
Plantier and Goddard 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 Plantier and Goddard exist in the art as exemplified by Mathal. Plantier, Goddard, and Mathal are considered to be analogous in the field of photonic interconnects.
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 Plantier and Goddard 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.
Plantier, Goddard, and Mathal are silent regarding 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 Plantier, Goddard, and Mathal exist in the art as exemplified by Gui.
Plantier, Goddard, Mathal, and Gui are considered to be analogous in the field of optical fibers. Plantier, Goddard, and Mathal 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 Plantier, Goddard, and Mathal 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.
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:
Tang (US 20240004134 A1) [Fig1a]
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
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