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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s Amendment filed on May 4, 2026 has been fully considered and entered.
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-5, 7-15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Dos Santos et al. (“Fabrication and characterization of a wet-etched InP-based vertical coupling mirror” from Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement) in view of Skinner et al. (US 2004/0120675 A1), further in view of Psaila et al. (US 2020/0326491 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 4, 11, 14 and 20, Dos Santos discloses an optical coupler (Fig. 2C, Fig. 4) comprising: an interlayer dielectric (InP is a dielectric material) comprising a first surface and a second surface (right and left side surfaces of wet-etched groove; it is noted the surfaces are not required to be straight) coupled to the first surface, and a third surface (top surface) coupled to the first surface, wherein the first surface and the second surface define a first cavity (etched groove is a cavity) in the interlayer dielectric; a waveguide (“SSC waveguide”) disposed within the interlayer dielectric, wherein the waveguide is arranged to emit an optical signal through the first surface; wherein the cavity is arranged to direct the optical signal from the first surface to the second surface, and wherein the second surface directs a first portion of the optical signal through an upper surface (Fig. 4).
Still regarding claims 1, 4, 11, 14 and 20, Dos Santos teaches the claimed invention except for the first surface forming an obtuse angle with the third surface. Skinner discloses an optical coupler comprising a cavity (15 in Fig. 1) formed by a first surface (16) and a second surface (17), and a third surface (top surface of 14), wherein the first surface is angled such that the first surface forms an obtuse angle with the third surface (Fig. 1; paragraph 0030). Since both of the inventions relate to optical devices, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to form the first surface at an obtuse angle with the third surface as disclosed by Skinner in the device of Dos Santos for the purpose of reducing back reflections at the first surface.
Still regarding claims 1, 4, 11, 14 and 20, the proposed combination of Dos Santos and Skinner teaches the claimed invention except for an epoxy. Psaila discloses an adhesive (682 in Fig. 17) disposed on an interlayer dielectric (614) and in a cavity (618; paragraph 0142 discloses adhesive 682 at least partially fills the cavity) such that the adhesive defines an upper surface and a bottom surface (upper surface contacts photonic component 626; lower surface contacts body 614), wherein the bottom surface directly contacts each of the first surface (paragraph 0142 discloses the adhesive 682 contacting the surface 624), the second surface (paragraph 0142 discloses adhesive 682 at least partially fills the cavity, implying it can completely fill the cavity and would therefore contact the second surface as shown in annotated Fig. 17 below), and the third surface (622; Fig. 17), and is positioned between the interlayer dielectric and the upper surface, wherein the adhesive is arranged to direct an optical signal (612) from a first surface to a second surface of the cavity (see Fig. 17), and wherein the second surface and the adhesive are arranged to direct a first portion of the optical signal through the upper surface (paragraph 0142 discloses routing of the optical signal between the waveguide 616 and the photonic component 626 when adhesive 682 is present in the cavity 618).
PNG
media_image1.png
564
840
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Since all of the inventions relate to optical devices, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to use an adhesive as disclosed by Psaila in the device of the proposed combination of Dos Santos and Skinner for the purpose of facilitating the transmission of the optical signal in a reliable and robust structure. Further, epoxy adhesives are well-known in the art and as such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to form the adhesive from an epoxy in order to select a readily available and cost-effective material, and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Dos Santos discloses the first surface and the second surface are positioned at different angles relative to the bottom surface in Fig. 2C and Fig. 4.
Regarding claims 3 and 13, the proposed combination of Dos Santos, Skinner and Psaila teaches the claimed invention except for specifically stating the second surface is curved. However, curved reflecting surfaces are well-known and commonly used in the art and as such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a curved reflecting surface for the purpose of controlling the beam shape.
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Dos Santos discloses a coating disposed on the second surface, wherein the coating is arranged to direct the first portion of the optical signal through the upper surface (see “Device fabrication” section disclosing a high-reflection coating on the mirror).
Regarding claims 7, 8, 17 and 18, the proposed combination of Dos Santos, Skinner and Psaila teaches the claimed invention except for the material of the coating. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to form the coating from a metal or dielectric, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 9, Dos Santos discloses the waveguide comprises a spot size converter (see “Device fabrication” section disclosing waveguides fabricated in a spot-size converter layer-stack).
Regarding claims 10 and 19, the proposed combination of Dos Santos, Skinner and Psaila teaches the claimed invention except for specifically stating the refractive index of the epoxy is higher than a refractive index of the interlayer dielectric. However, epoxies having various refractive indexes are well-known in the art and as such, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to select the refractive index of the epoxy to be higher than a refractive index of the interlayer dielectric to enhance the confinement of the optical signal.
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Dos Santos et al. (“Fabrication and characterization of a wet-etched InP-based vertical coupling mirror” from Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement) in view of Skinner et al. (US 2004/0120675 A1), further in view of Psaila et al. (US 2020/0326491 A1), and further in view of Pezeshki et al. (US 2021/0080664 A1).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, the proposed combination of Dos Santos, Skinner and Psaila teaches the claimed invention except for a second cavity having fourth and fifth surfaces. Pezeshki discloses an optical coupler (Fig. 13b; paragraphs 0093-0096) which defines a fourth surface and a fifth surface (2nd slave node reflective cavity) coupled to the third surface to define a second cavity in addition to a first surface and a second surface (1st slave node reflective cavity) which define a first cavity; the second surface outputs a first portion of the optical signal (fraction of light is output to photodetector 1323 at 1st slave node) and a second portion of the optical signal through the fourth surface to the fifth surface and outputs the second portion of the optical signal (another fraction of light is output at 2nd slave node). Since all of the inventions relate to optical devices, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to use a second cavity with corresponding third and fourth surfaces as disclosed by Pezeshki in the device of the proposed combination of Dos Santos, Skinner and Psaila for the purpose of enabling multiple receiving taps along an optical bus.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see pages 6-7, with respect to claims have been considered but are not persuasive.
On pages 6-7, Applicant argues that Psaila does not teach an adhesive that directly contacts the second surface due to metal reflective coating 680 disposed on the second surface. However, as shown in the annotated Fig. 17 of Psaila, the adhesive would still contact regions of the second surface above and below the metal reflective coating.
PNG
media_image1.png
564
840
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The language in amended claims 1, 11 and 20 do not require direct contact over the entirety of the second surface. As such, Psaila still reads on an adhesive having a bottom surface which contacts each of the first surface, the second surface, and the third surface of the interlayer dielectric. Thus, the prima facie rejection of claims 1, 11 and 20 are maintained.
Conclusion
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 CHRIS H CHU whose telephone number is (571)272-8655. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9AM-5PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Uyen-Chau Le can be reached on 571-272-239797. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Any inquiry of a general or clerical nature should be directed to the Technology Center 2800 receptionist at telephone number (571) 272-1562.
Chris H. Chu
/CHRIS H CHU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874 July 1, 2026
Prosecution Insights