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.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, A, in response/amendment is acknowledged. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
The prior art documents submitted by Applicant(s) in the information Disclosure Statement(s) have all been considered and made of record (note the attached copy of form(s)
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.
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.
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.
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.
Claims 1-4, 8-11, 21-25 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over “Matsuda” et al., US 20260177753 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Matsuda teaches a photonic assembly (see figs. 1-15), comprising:
a photonic integrated circuit (PlC) (see at least parag. 0240) including a first surface having a channel and a first magnetic material (see at least figs 14-15 and 1-4, and parag. 0116); a fiber connector (i.e., 100) including a second surface with a second magnetic material (see at least figs 14-15 and 1-4, and parag. 0116, 0132); and a fiber physically coupled to the second surface of the fiber connector by an adhesive material (see at least parag. 0131, wherein the adhesive would physically couples to surface(s) wherein the first surface of the PlC is coupled to the second surface of the fiber connector by the first and second magnetic materials with the fiber positioned in the channel (see at least figs 14-15 and 1-4, and parag. 0102).
However, Matsuda does not explicitly state “photonic” for the assembly or the integrated circuits. Nonetheless, it is obvious/well-known to those of ordinary 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 that such terms that are associated with optical fiber and/or optical circuitry is/known as “photonic” term as to provide optical communication in the assembly with predictable results.
The statements advanced in rejection of claim 1, above, as to the applicability and disclosure of Matsuda and the motivation are incorporated herein in rejection of the following claims as follows:
2. (Original) The photonic assembly of claim 1, wherein the first magnetic material includes a ferromagnet (see at least paar. 0132).
With regard to claims 3, 4, wherein the first magnetic material includes a rare earth magnet; wherein the channel is V-shaped, though Matsuda teaches magnetic material is doped ( see parag. 0185) and round channels, nevertheless, such magnetic material and v-shaped channel/groove is extremely conventional-see cited prior art--, and one of ordinary skill in the art could easly use such material and shape.
8. (Original) The photonic assembly of claim 1, wherein the channel is one of a plurality of channels and the fiber is one of a plurality of fibers (see figs. 1-4).
9. (Original) The photonic assembly of claim 8, wherein the plurality of fibers is a plurality of second fibers, and the photonic assembly further comprising:a plurality of first fibers embedded within the fiber connector adjacent to the second surface of the fiber connector (see figs. 1-4 and 15).
10. (Original) The photonic assembly of claim 1, further comprising: an external optical source optically coupled to the fiber connector (see fig. 14).
11. (Original) The photonic assembly of claim 10, wherein the external optical source is a “fiber pigtail” (shown n fig. 14).
Regarding claim 21, Matsuda teaches photonic assembly (see figs. 1-15), comprising:
a substrate including conductive pathways (see at least parag. 0011; 0020; a photonic integrated circuit (PIC) including a surface having a channel and a first magnetic material (see at least figs 14-15 and 1-4, and parag. 0116), wherein the surface of the PIC faces the substrate and is electrically coupled to the conductive pathways in the substrate (See figs. 1-4); a fiber connector (i.e, 100) including a surface with a second magnetic material (see at least figs 14-15 and 1-4, and parag. 0116, 0132), wherein the surface of the PIC is coupled to the surface of the fiber connector by the first and second magnetic materials (see at least figs 14-15 and 1-4, and parag. 0102); and a fiber physically coupled to the surface of the fiber connector and within the channel between the PIC and the fiber connector (see at least figs 14-15 and 1-4, and parag. 0102).
. With regard to claims 22-23, wherein the first and second magnetic materials include rare earth magnets; wherein the first and second magnetic materials include a neodymium magnet or a samarium-cobalt magnet, though Matsuda teaches magnetic material is doped ( see parag. 0185) and round channels, nevertheless, such magnetic material and v-shaped channel/groove is extremely conventional-see cited prior art--, and one of ordinary skill in the art could easily use such material and shape.
. However, Matsuda does not explicitly state “photonic” for the assembly or the integrated circuits. Nonetheless, it is obvious/well-known to those of ordinary 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 that such terms that are associated with optical fiber and/or optical circuitry is/known as “photonic” term as to provide optical communication in the assembly with predictable results.
24. (New) The photonic assembly of claim 21, wherein the fiber is one of a plurality of fibers and the plurality of fibers includes between six fibers and twelve fibers (see figs. 1-14, 15).
25. (New) The photonic assembly of claim 21, wherein the fiber is physically coupled to the surface of the fiber connector by a die attach film (DAF), a non-conductive adhesive, a B-stage underfill, or a polymer film with adhesive property (see at least figs. 1-4, 15 and such coupling is extremely conventional)..
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5-7 and 26-29 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
Prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. In accordance with MPEP 707.05 the following references are pertinent in rejection of this application since they provide substantially the same information disclosure as this patent does. These references are:
WO 9936193 A1
GB 2700106 A
CN 105137861 A
CN 111650543 A
US 7440668 B2
US 20180097269 A1
WO 2023147893 A1
US 20260177753 A1
US 6684007 B2
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAVEH C KIANNI whose telephone number is (571)272-2417. The examiner can normally be reached on 9-19.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Thomas Hollweg can be reached on571-270-1739. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KAVEH C KIANNI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights