DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is responsive to Applicant’s response submitted 27 July 2026.
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 .
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 and 2 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.
Claim 2 recites “wherein the second direction is perpendicular to the substrate.” However, claim 1, which claim 2 depends recites “a second direction is away from the substrate top surface and forms an angle less than 60 degrees with a third direction, wherein the third direction is perpendicular with the substrate.” It is unclear how the second direction can be perpendicular to the substrate as recited in claim 2 and also a second direction forming an angled less than 60 degrees with a third direction perpendicular with the substrate. The third direction is not defined to be perpendicular to which surface of the substrate. The second direction is not defined to be perpendicular to which surface of the substrate. Additionally, Applicant presents in the Remarks section an example of a zero angle so that the both perpendicular directions are parallel, but it is unclear how the direction are related. At a zero angle, are the perpendicular directions overlapping so they are on top of each other? At an angle between 0 and 60 degrees, it is unclear how the perpendicular directions related.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-13 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2002/0096686 to Raj et al in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0320586 to Yip
In regards to claim 1, Raj teaches a reflector structure (102 / 300) disposed on a substrate (306), wherein the reflector structure is configured to transmit an optical signal between a first direction and a second direction, wherein the first direction is parallel to the substrate and along a top surface of the substrate, wherein the second direction is away from the substrate top surface and forms an angle less than 60 degrees with a third direction, where in the third direction is perpendicular to the substrate, wherein the reflector structure has a curved surface (302), wherein the curved surface is configured to reflect an incoming optical signal to a reflected optical signal comprising a smaller cross section area (focusing of light/focused output). (Figures 1 & 3) But Raj fails to expressly teach wherein the reflector structure comprises a curved surface, with the curved surface comprising curved intersecting lines between the curved surface and planes parallel and perpendicular to the substrate. However, Yip teaches an improved curved reflector with a focused output and a curves surface (22). (Figure 2A) Yip further teaches the reflector having a parabolic shape, the parabolic shape having a three dimensional shape by definition. Yip teaches the improved curved reflector to increase the efficiency of the illumination source. [0010] Therefore, the reflector of Yip teaches the curved surface comprising curved intersecting lines between the curved surface and planes parallel and perpendicular to the substrate. Since both Raj and Yip teach a curved reflector structure with a focused output and further since Yip teaches an improved curved reflector having a parabolic shape, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have provided the curved reflector of Yip in the device of Raj in order to improve the efficiency of the illumination source.
In regards to claim 3, Raj teaches the reflector structure comprises a reflector layer [0024] disposed in a cavity [0024; within the substrate] of the substrate.
In regards to claim 4, Raj teaches the reflector structure comprises a reflector layer [0024] disposed in a cavity [0024; within the substrate] of the substrate and Yip teaches the reflective layer comprises a variable thickness (see Figure 2A) across at least the curved intersecting lines.
In regards to claim 5, Raj teaches the reflector structure is configured to transmit or receive the optical signal between a first device disposed on the substrate and a second device disposed on the reflector structure.
In regards to claim 6, Raj teaches a substrate (306), a first optical element (304) disposed on the substrate, with the optical element configured to transmit an optical signal or to receive the optical signal, a reflector structure (102 / 300) disposed on the substrate and aligned with the optical element [0027], wherein the reflector structure is configured to transmit or receive the optical signal between the first element and a second optical element (106) disposed away from the reflector structure in a direction from the substrate to the reflector structure, wherein the reflector structure comprises a curved surface (302), wherein the curved surface is configured to reflect an incoming optical signal to a reflected optical signal comprising a smaller cross section area (focusing of light/focused output). (Figures 1 & 3) But Raj fails to expressly teach wherein the reflector structure comprises a curved surface, with the curved surface comprising curved intersecting lines between the curved surface and planes parallel and perpendicular to the substrate. However, Yip teaches an improved curved reflector with a focused output and a curves surface (22). (Figure 2A) Yip further teaches the reflector having a parabolic shape, the parabolic shape having a three dimensional shape by definition. Yip teaches the improved curved reflector to increase the efficiency of the illumination source. [0010] Therefore, the reflector of Yip teaches the curved surface comprising curved intersecting lines between the curved surface and planes parallel and perpendicular to the substrate. Since both Raj and Yip teach a curved reflector structure with a focused output and further since Yip teaches an improved curved reflector having a parabolic shape, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have provided the curved reflector of Yip in the device of Raj in order to improve the efficiency of the illumination source.
In regards to claim 7, Raj teaches the first optical element comprises a waveguide, the second optical element comprises an optical or an optoelectronic surface-mount device.
In regards to claim 8, Raj teaches the second optical element comprises an optical or an optoelectronic surface-mount device disposed on the substrate and aligned with the first optical element.
In regards to claims 9 and 10, although Raj does not expressly disclose an alignment aid elements disposed on the substrate, wherein the alignment aid element is configured to align optical elements to be mounted on the substrate, wherein the first optical element is separated from the alignment aid element with a distance and the second alignment aid to restrict movement, it is advantageous to use alignment aid elements in order to ensure proper alignment and decrease the loss of light. The concept, placement and functionality of alignment aid elements are well known and a commonly employed technique in the optical art. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have provided alignment aid elements on the substrate for the purpose of aligning optical elements on the substrate wherein the first optical element is separated from the alignment aid element with a distance and the second alignment aid to restrict movement. Furthermore, the limitations regarding an accuracy of the lithography process is not a known standard of accuracy. Further, should it be a standard, standards are not a set value and can be modified as technology improves. Therefore, the Examiner can reasonably construe any reasonable accuracy to meet the limitation.
In regards to claim 11, Raj teaches the reflector structure comprises a reflective layer [0024] disposed in a cavity [0024; within the substrate] of the substrate, wherein the substrate comprises mounting pads (110) on top the layer to receive the second optical element.
In regards to claim 12, Raj teaches the reflector structure comprises a reflective layer [0024] disposed in a cavity [0024; within the substrate] of the substrate, wherein the first optical element comprises an end facet facing the cavity, with the cavity configured to align the optical signal between the first optical element through the end facet and the cavity.
In regards to claim 13, Raj teaches the reflector structure comprises a reflective layer [0024] disposed in a cavity [0024; within the substrate] of the substrate, wherein the reflector structure separated from the first optical element by a distance. Furthermore, the limitations regarding an accuracy of the lithography process is not a known standard of accuracy. Further, should it be a standard, standards are not a set value and can be modified as technology improves. . Therefore, the Examiner can reasonably construe any reasonable accuracy to meet the limitation.
In regards to claim 18, Raj teaches a substrate (306), a waveguide (304) on the substrate, with the waveguide configured to transmit an optical signal or to receive the optical signal, a reflector structure (102 / 300) disposed on the substrate and aligned with the waveguide, wherein the reflector structure comprises a curved surface (302), wherein the curved surface is configured to reflect an incoming optical signal to a reflected optical signal comprising a smaller cross section area (focusing of light/focused output) (Figures 1 & 3), a second device (106) disposed on the layer above the reflector structure, wherein the second device is configured to receive or transmit the optical signal from or to the first device reflected by the reflector structure. But Raj fails to expressly teach wherein the reflector structure comprises a curved surface, with the curved surface comprising curved intersecting lines between the curved surface and planes parallel and perpendicular to the substrate. However, Yip teaches an improved curved reflector with a focused output and a curves surface (22). (Figure 2A) Yip further teaches the reflector having a parabolic shape, the parabolic shape having a three dimensional shape by definition. Yip teaches the improved curved reflector to increase the efficiency of the illumination source. [0010] Therefore, the reflector of Yip teaches the curved surface comprising curved intersecting lines between the curved surface and planes parallel and perpendicular to the substrate. Since both Raj and Yip teach a curved reflector structure with a focused output and further since Yip teaches an improved curved reflector having a parabolic shape, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have provided the curved reflector of Yip in the device of Raj in order to improve the efficiency of the illumination source.
Raj further fails to teach a first device coupled to the waveguide on the substrate, with the first device configured to transmit an optical signal to the waveguide or to receive the optical signal from the waveguide. However, Raj teaches the waveguide to receive an input signal and an example of a light emitting device is a light emitting diode or laser and an example of a light detecting device is a diode or detector. [0018] Since Raj teaches the device to be a bidirectional device and further since Raj teaches the waveguide to receive an input or output from examples of light emitting and detecting devices, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have provided a first device coupled to the waveguide on the substrate, with the first device configured to transmit an optical signal to the waveguide or to receive the optical signal from the waveguide.
In regards to claims 19 and 20, Raj teaches a bidirectional device. Raj further teaches the first device to comprises an optical emitter device/optical receiver device, the second device to comprise an optical receiver device/optical emitter device, wherein the first/second device is configured to transmit the optical signal to the reflector, with the optical signal received by the second/first device after being reflected by the reflector structure.
Claim(s) 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2002/0096686 to Raj et al in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0320586 to Yip as applied to claim 6 above and in further view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2003/0142896 to Kikuchi et al.
In regards to claims 14-17, Raj teaches the reflector structure comprises a reflective layer [0024] disposed in a cavity [0024; within the substrate] of the substrate. But Raj in view of Yip fails to expressly teach the substrate comprises an interconnection layer under the first optical element, wherein the interconnection layer comprises one or more interconnection lines disposed in one or more levels and one or more vias connected to the one or more interconnection lines, wherein the structure further comprises an optical or optoelectrical device disposed on the substrate and aligned with the first optical element, wherein the optical or optoelectrical device is coupled to an interconnect line in the interconnection layer, wherein the substrate comprises an alignment aid element configured to align the first optical element with an optical or optoelectrical device to be mounted on the substrate, wherein the substrate comprises one or more bond pads connected to interconnect lines in the interconnection layer, with the bond pads configured to be coupled to terminal pads of the optical or optoelectronic device, and wherein the reflective layer is connected to an interconnect line of the interconnect layer, wherein the second optical element comprises an optoelectronic device comprising a terminal pad connected to the reflective layer. However, Kikuchi teaches an optical structure having a waveguide and a spherical surface for focusing the output light. [0065] Kikuchi further teaches wiring patterns within an interconnect layer capable of being configured for various structural arrangements (see Figures 1, 3, 7, 9, 12,15, 17, and 18, each embodiment having a different configuration of components) for the purpose of connecting the various components of the device. Since Raj, Yip and Kikuchi are all from the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have provided the substrate comprises an interconnection layer under the first optical element, wherein the interconnection layer comprises one or more interconnection lines disposed in one or more levels and one or more vias connected to the one or more interconnection lines, wherein the structure further comprises an optical or optoelectrical device disposed on the substrate and aligned with the first optical element, wherein the optical or optoelectrical device is coupled to an interconnect line in the interconnection layer, wherein the substrate comprises an alignment aid element configured to align the first optical element with an optical or optoelectrical device to be mounted on the substrate, wherein the substrate comprises one or more bond pads connected to interconnect lines in the interconnection layer, with the bond pads configured to be coupled to terminal pads of the optical or optoelectronic device, and wherein the reflective layer is connected to an interconnect line of the interconnect layer, wherein the second optical element comprises an optoelectronic device comprising a terminal pad connected to the reflective layer.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 27 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argues the amended first, second and third directions overcomes the 35 USC 112 rejection. However, the Examiner disagrees. Although an amendment is presented, the claim remains unclear. It is unclear how the second direction can be perpendicular to the substrate as recited in claim 2 and also a second direction forming an angled less than 60 degrees with a third direction perpendicular with the substrate. The third direction is not defined to be perpendicular to which surface of the substrate. The second direction is not defined to be perpendicular to which surface of the substrate. Furthermore, an example of a zero angle so that the both perpendicular directions are parallel, but it is unclear how the direction are related. At a zero angle, are the perpendicular directions overlapping so they are on top of each other? At an angle between 0 and 60 degrees, it is unclear how the perpendicular directions related.
Applicant further argues the combinations of Raj in view of Yip. Applicant argues there is no motivation to combine the references since Raj and Yip have different goals. However, the Examiner disagrees. The Yip reference is relied upon to show the general teaching of a reflector having a curved surface. Although the Yip device may have a different goal, a reflector having a curved surface is taught. Furthermore, although the Yip reference may have different goals, the Examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, reflectors having a curved surface is taught by Yip and can be applied in the device of Raj to meet the structural limitations of the claim. Claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure. (In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997); See MPEP 2114 [R-1]).
Conclusion
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TINA M WONG whose telephone number is (571)272-2352. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:30.
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 (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.
/TINA WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874
