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 .
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted/amended claims 7-8, 10-12, 21-27 are directed to an invention that is distinct from the invention originally claimed for the reasons that follow [see further below].
Claims 1-6, 9, 13 are the remaining claims that were originally presented since claims 1-6, 9, 13 are the only claims properly added and entered in the application before the first restriction requirement {RR} Office action on the merits mailed on 7/1/25.
So, currently, nine groups of claims are present in the 8/30/15 version of the claims:
Claims 1-6, 9, 13 claiming subject matter as originally filed.
Claims 7-8, which contain limitations not originally claimed, such as those involving optical to electrical conversion.
Claim 10, which contains limitations not originally claimed, such as the electrical path is closer to a center of the lateral surface of the first photonic component than the first optical path.
Claims 11-12, which contains limitations not originally claimed, such as limitations involving a minimum distance between two directly adjacent photonic components in the optical device.
Claim 21, which contains limitations not originally claimed, such as none of lateral surfaces of the first photonic component directly faces the second photonic component.
Claims 22-23, which contains limitation(s) not originally claimed, such as fiber array unit (FAU).
Claims 24-25, which contains limitations not originally claimed, such as the second optical path is across the second photonic component and the third photonic component without overlapping the first optical path.
Claim 26, which contains limitations not originally claimed, such as configured to modulate or amplify signals from the first photonic component.
Claim 27, which contains limitations not originally claimed, such as a processing unit disposed below the first photonic component and configured to determine whether the first photonic component communicates with the second photonic component through the first optical path or the electrical path.
The inventions as claimed are not obvious variants; and the inventions as claimed
can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect at least due to the
fact that each of respective groups II-IX cite imitation(s) not present in the remaining groups
[MPEP § 806.05(j)].
Also, the inventions as claimed do not overlap in scope, i.e., are mutually exclusive at
least due to the fact that each of respective groups II-IX cite limitation(s) not present in the
remaining groups [MPEP § 806.05(j)].
Since applicant has received an action on the merits [on 7/1/25] for the originally presented invention of Group Ia, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 7-8, 10-12, 21-27 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-6, 9, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The claim 1 language “the first photonic component is configured to communicate with the second photonic component through a first optical path or an electrical path depending on a distance between the first photonic component and the second photonic component” can be interpreted as saying: the first photonic component is configured to communicate with the second photonic component through a first optical path depending on a distance between the first photonic component and the second photonic component or the first photonic component is configured to communicate with the second (2nd) photonic component (PC) through an electrical path depending on a distance between the first (1st) photonic component and the second photonic component. Furthermore, since “the first photonic component is configured to communicate with the second photonic component through a first optical path or an electrical path depending on a distance between the first photonic component and the second photonic component” is not precise enough wording it may also be interpreted as saying: the first photonic component is configured to communicate with the second photonic component through a first optical path that depends on a distance between the first photonic component and the second photonic component or the first photonic component is configured to communicate with the second (2nd) photonic component (PC) through an electrical path that depends on a distance between the first (1st) photonic component and the second photonic component.
It is well known to the skilled artisan that the optical path between two optical components depends on the distance between the aforesaid two optical components (as a non-limiting example if the optical path is not long enough to cover the distance, a successful optical connection may not be able to be achieved in some circumstances). Moreover, it is also well known to the skilled artisan that electrical communication between two optical components depends on the distance between the aforesaid two components (as a non-limiting example if the electrical path is not long enough to cover the distance, a successful electrical connection may not be able to be achieved in some circumstances).
For the purposes of the rejection(s) any broadest reasonable interpretation, including what is discussed above, may be applied.
However, Applicant can clarify the claim 1 language by changing “photonic component through a first optical path or an electrical path depending on a distance” to --photonic component through either a first optical path or an electrical path depending on a distance--. The aforesaid change will make the claim clearer.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Doerr (US 20160124164).
Regarding claim 1, Doerr teaches an optical device (e.g., fig. 1; ¶s 0027-0031), comprising: a first photonic component 102; and a second photonic component 106, wherein the first photonic component 102 is configured to communicate with the second photonic component 106 through a first optical path {OP} 1163 [e.g., fig. 1; ¶s 0027-0031; it is noted that ¶ 0027 indicates that PCB 101 may have multiple {“one or more”} PICs 102, EICs, and/or laser chips] or an electrical path 108 (e.g., fig. 1; ¶ 0027) depending on a distance between the first (1st) photonic component (PC) 102 and the second (2nd) photonic component 106 [as a non-limiting example, 1st optical path 1163 depends on a distance between the 1st PC and the 2nd PC at least because the optical fiber {OF} of OP 1163, at least to reasonably fit between 1st PC 102 and the 2nd PC 106, should be a reasonably short length relative to OFs 1161 1162 which can be destined for further away locations; thus, the 1st optical path 1163 depends on a distance between the 1st OC and the 2nd OC; moreover, an electrical path {EP} depends on a distance between the 1st OC and the 2nd OC since the EP must be long enough to cover the distance for a successful electrical connection to occur between the 1st OC and the 2nd OC; so, for example, if the distance between the 1st OC and the 2nd OC is greater, the EP would need to be greater; thus the EP depends on a distance between the 1st PC and the 2nd PC; fig. 1].
Thus claim 1 is met.
Regarding claim 2, Doerr teaches the optical device of claim 1 (see above), wherein in the case that the first photonic component 102 is directly adjacent to the second photonic component 106 (e.g., fig. 1), the first photonic component 102 is configured to communicate with the second photonic component 106 through the electrical path 108 (e.g., fig. 1; ¶s 0027-0031).
Thus claim 2 is met.
Regarding claim 3, Doerr teaches the optical device of claim 2 (see above), wherein a lateral surface of the first photonic component directly faces a lateral surface of the second photonic component (e.g., fig. 1).
Thus claim 3 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) 4-6, 9. 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doerr (US 20160124164).
Regarding claim 4, Doerr teaches the optical device of claim 1 (see above 102 rejection). Doerr does not explicitly state “wherein in the case that the first photonic component is non-adjacent to the second photonic component, the first photonic component is configured to communicate with the second photonic component through the first optical path”.
However, Doerr ¶ 0031 states that the OFs of apparatus 100 can be coupled to components on the PCB 101 and/or external to the PCB 101. As already noted ¶ 0027 indicates that PCB 101 may have multiple {“one or more”} PICs 102, EICs, and/or laser chips. Further, ¶ 0027 states that the PIC 102 is coupled to OFs to route optical signals into or out of a PIC. Additionally, ¶ 0028 indicates a PIC may modulate, process, detect light and/or provide a transceiver. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optical communication [via OFs] between multiple PICs on a PCB at least for the purpose of performing multiple optical processing functions (via the different PICs) which can expand processing capabilities. Therefore, the arrangement of the first photonic component being non-adjacent to the second photonic component, the first photonic component is configured to communicate with the second photonic component through the first optical path at least would have been obvious to the artisan of ordinary skill at least for the purpose of minimizing the amount of electrical wiring which can cause electromagnetic interference and/or avoid having to convert the optical signals to electrical signals for transport to a different location [e.g., see also: MPEP § 2144.04 rearranging parts and/or MPEP §2144.07 Art Recognized Suitability for an Intended Purpose].
Thus claim 4 is rejected.
Regarding claim 5, Doerr at least renders obvious the optical device of claim 4 (see above), further comprising a third photonic component disposed between the first photonic component and the second photonic component, and the first photonic component is configured to communicate with the third photonic component through a second electrical path [e.g., as already stated, ¶ 0027 indicates that PCB 101 may have multiple {“one or more”} PICs, and, further the PICs may have different function as indicated in ¶ 0028; so, an additional 3rd PC/PIC in the claimed location would have at least been obvious; moreover Doerr fig. 1 shows electrical paths extending from each component, so, the first photonic component configured to communicate with the third photonic component through a second electrical path clearly would have been obvious; see also: MPEP § 2144.04 rearranging parts and/or MPEP §2144.07 Art Recognized Suitability for an Intended Purpose].
Thus claim 5 is rejected.
Regarding claim 6, Doerr teaches the optical device of claim 1 (see above 102 rejection). Furthermore, Doerr at least renders as obvious the device further comprising a third photonic component configured to communicate with the second photonic component through a second optical path and to communicate with the first photonic component through a third optical path (e.g., fig. 1; ¶s 0027-0031; at least based on the reasoning discussed above in the rejection of claims 4, 5, the arrangement described in claim 6 is at least obvious; see also: MPEP § 2144.04 rearranging parts and/or MPEP §2144.07 Art Recognized Suitability for an Intended Purpose).
Thus claim 6 is rejected.
Regarding claim 9, Doerr at least renders obvious the optical device of claim 6 (see above). Furthermore, Doerr at least renders as obvious the device wherein a distance between the first photonic component and the third photonic component is larger than a distance between the second photonic component and the third photonic component (e.g., fig. 1; ¶s 0027-0031; Doerr’s disclosure allows for an arrangement of a 1st, 2nd, and 3rd PC/PIC/Laser to be arranged in accord with instant claim 9; see also: MPEP § 2144.04 rearranging parts and/or MPEP §2144.07 Art Recognized Suitability for an Intended Purpose).
Thus claim 9 is rejected.
Regarding claim 13, Doerr teaches the optical device of claim 1 (see above 102 rejection). Furthermore, the first optical path is located adjacent to a corner of the first photonic component would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention at least since Doerr fig. 1 is a non-limiting example and Doerr actually does show an OF 1161 adjacent to a corner of the PIC 102. Furthermore, since Doerr already teaches more than one PIC can be located on PCB 101, a 2nd PC/PIC/laser could be located, when looking at the six rectangles (two columns having 3 rectangles in each column), at the middle rectangle in the 2nd column in which case it would make sense for OF 1161 to be cut to a reasonable length and have its other end attached to the inner edge of the middle rectangle in the 2nd column in order for PIC 102 shown in fig. 1 to communicate optically with a PC (call it a 2nd PC) located the middle rectangle in the 2nd column. The electrical paths/traces 108 all are adjacent to an edge of each of the six rectangles/PICs/lasers/EICs and the electrical path is located adjacent to an edge of the first photonic component (e.g., fig. 1; ¶s 0027-0031; in fig. 1; see also: MPEP § 2144.04 rearranging parts and/or MPEP §2144.07 Art Recognized Suitability for an Intended Purpose).
Thus claim 13 is rejected.
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