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
Claims 3, 4, 7, 9 – 13, 18 – 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 6/8/26. Examiner respectfully asserts that due to the overwhelming amount of art in the classification areas and the queries of the divergent structures examination of all of the species requires an undue burden on the examiner.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 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. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious wherein the reflective surface is oriented such that the one or more collimated beams are oriented at an angle between 20° and 70° relative to the plane parallel to the top surface.
The closest relevant prior art of record, Li et al. (U.S. PG Pub.# 2023/0089433 A1), teaches that the collimating beams are perpendicular to an optical axis of the waveguides (pars. 0010, 0011), thus failing to teach or suggest that the collimated beams are oriented between 20 and 70 degrees as claimed.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li et al. (U.S. PG Pub.# 2023/0089433 A1).
In Re claim 1, ‘433 teaches an apparatus comprising: a photonic integrated circuit (PIC) die (102), wherein one or more waveguides (110) are defined in the PIC die; a reflective component (177) comprising a reflective surface (178), wherein the reflective component is configured to reflect light from the one or more waveguides off of the reflective surface; and a lens array comprising one or more optical focusing elements (138, par. 0054) configured to focus the light reflected off of the reflective surface into one or more collimated beams, wherein the lens array is fixed in place relative to the PIC die (figs. 22, 24A).
In Re claim 2, ‘433 teaches wherein the one or more waveguides extend to a side surface of the PIC die, wherein the reflective surface extends below a plane defined by a top surface of the PIC die (fig. 22, 24A).
In Re claim 5, ‘433 teaches wherein the reflective component is not part of the lens array or the PIC die (figs. 22, 24A).
In Re claim 6, ‘433 teaches wherein the one or more optical focusing elements comprise one or more lenses (138).
In Re claim 14, ‘433 teaches a compute device comprising the apparatus of claim 1, the compute device further comprising: a processor communicatively coupled to the apparatus; and a memory communicatively coupled to the processor and the apparatus (fig. 33, par. 0185).
Claims 1, 2, 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Badihi et al. (U.S. PG Pub. # 2016/0370544 A1).
In Re claim 1, ‘544 teaches an apparatus comprising: a photonic integrated circuit (PIC) die (24), wherein one or more waveguides (36) are defined in the PIC die (fig. 3); a reflective component comprising a reflective surface (153), wherein the reflective component is configured to reflect light from the one or more waveguides off of the reflective surface; and a lens array (48) comprising one or more optical focusing elements configured to focus the light reflected off of the reflective surface into one or more collimated beams (par. 0072), wherein the lens array is fixed in place relative to the PIC die (fig. 3).
In Re claim 2, ‘544 teaches wherein the one or more waveguides extend to a side surface of the PIC die (fig. 3), wherein the reflective surface extends below a plane defined by a top surface of the PIC die (fig. 3).
In Re claim 5, ‘544 teaches wherein the reflective component is not part of the lens array or the PIC die (par. 0020, 0098, fig. 3).
In Re claim 6, ‘544 teaches wherein the one or more optical focusing elements comprise one or more lenses (par. 0090).
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.
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.
Claims 14 – 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Badihi et al. (U.S. PG Pub. # 2016/0370544 A1).
In Re claim 14, ‘544 teaches a compute device comprising the apparatus of claim 1, the compute device further comprising: a processor communicatively coupled to the apparatus (par. 0059), but is silent to a memory communicatively coupled to the processor and the apparatus.
However, it is well known in the art to have a memory connected to a processor so as to allow for instructions to operate the processor to be stored thereon.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a memory to the apparatus of ‘544 so as to store the instructions for the processor to operate as a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.
In Re claims 15 and 16, ‘544 teaches an apparatus comprising: a photonic integrated circuit (PIC) die (24), wherein one or more waveguides (36) are defined in the PIC die, wherein the PIC die comprises a top surface (seen in figs. 3 or 4), wherein the one or more waveguides are defined in a plane parallel to the top surface of the PIC die, wherein the one or more waveguides extend to a side surface of the PIC die (figs. 3 or 4); and a reflective component (162) comprising a reflective surface (153), wherein the reflective component is configured to reflect light off of the reflective surface, wherein the light is from the side surface of the PIC die from the one or more waveguides, comprising a lens array (48) comprising one or more optical focusing elements configured to focus the light reflected off of the reflective surface into one or more collimated beams (par. 0075), wherein the lens array is fixed in place relative to the PIC die, and that light may be deflected at another angle besides 45 degrees (par. 0092), but is silent in the current embodiment to wherein the reflective surface is oriented such that the reflective surface is at an angle between 10° and 40 relative to the plane parallel to the top surface.
‘544 teaches in pars. 0010, 0048 and 0092 that light is deflected 30 to 90 degrees or different from 45 degrees.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the reflective surface to be at an angle between 10° and 40 relative to the plane parallel to the top surface to compensate for the angle of the light entering 122 and/or 162 depending upon the material used and the refractive index of such material so as to ensure that the light exits vertically to lens 48 as a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.
In Re claim 17, ‘544 teaches wherein the reflective surface extends below a plane defined by the top surface of the PIC die (figs. 3 or 4).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHAD SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-1294. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 - 5.
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, Uyen-Chau Le can be reached at 1-571-272-2397. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/CHAD H SMITH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights