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 .
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 1-6, 8-13, 15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by US Patent to Yanagawa 4,900,118US.
In terms of Claim 1, Yanagawa teaches a fiber array unit (Figure 13), comprising: a substrate (Figure 13: 101) with a first end and a second end (Figure 13: 101 left and right side); a first mesa (left side of 101) adjacent to the first end (101 left side); a second mesa (right side of 101) adjacent to the second end (right side of 101); a v-groove in the first mesa (Figure 13: 113); and a slot in the second mesa (Figure 13: 102) the slot having a planar bottom surface (See Figure 38: wherein the 2nd slot area can be planar), wherein the v-groove is aligned with the slot (Figure 13: 113 and 102).
PNG
media_image1.png
370
736
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As for Claim 2, Yanagawa teaches the device of claim 1, further comprising: a recess (Figure 13: 107) into the substrate (101) between the first mesa and the second mesa (Figure 13: 101 and 107).
As for Claim 3, Yanagawa teaches the device of claim 2, wherein the recess (107) has a sloped sidewall (107) adjacent to the first mesa and a vertical sidewall adjacent to the second mesa (although the second side is sloped the examiner still considers it a vertical side wall because it extends upwards in the vertical direction).
As for Claim 4, Yanagawa teaches the device of claim 2, wherein a depth of the slot is less than a depth of the recess (Figure 13: 107 and 102)
As for Claim 5, Yanagawa teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the first mesa (left side of 101) and the second mesa are a monolithic structure (Figure 13: 101).
As for Claim 6, Yanagawa teaches the device of claim 5, wherein the slot (102) terminates at an end of the v-groove (Figure 13: 102).
As for Claim 8, Yanagawa teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the slot extends through an entire width of the second mesa (102).
As for Claim 9, Yanagawa teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the slot has substantially vertical sidewalls (102; although the sidewalls are sloped the examiner still considers it “a substantially vertical sidewall” because it extends upwards in the vertical direction).
As for Claim 10, Yanagawa teaches the device of claim 1, wherein a thickness of the first mesa is substantially equal to a thickness of the second mesa (101).
As for Claim 11, Yanagawa teaches the device of claim 1, further comprising: a plurality of v-grooves in the first mesa; and a plurality of slots in the second mesa, wherein individual ones of the v-grooves are aligned with individual ones of the plurality of slots (Figure 14: 113 and 102).
In terms of Claim 12, Yanagawa teaches A fiber array unit (Figure 13), comprising: a substrate (Figure 13: 101); a first mesa over the substrate (left side of 101); a v-groove into the first mesa (Figure 13: 103 or 113); a second mesa (right side of 101) over the substrate; a slot into the second mesa (Figure 13: 102), the slot having a planar bottom surface (See Figure 38 above or Figure 20: right side has a planar bottom surface), wherein the slot is aligned with the v-groove (Figure 13: 113 and 102); and an optical fiber disposed in the v-groove and the slot (Figure 13: 1 and 2), wherein a first end of the optical fiber in the v-groove is a cladded fiber (104b or Figure 51 603), and wherein a second end of the optical fiber in the slot is a cladded fiber with a coating around the cladding (Figure 51: 602 has a coating still on the fiber).
As for Claim 13, Yanagawa teaches the device of claim 12, further comprising: a plate over the first end of the optical fiber (Figure 3).
As for Claim 15, Yanagawa teaches the device of claim 12, further comprising: a recess between the first mesa and the second mesa (Figure 13: 107 and 113 and 102 on left and right side).
As for Claim 18, Yanagawa teaches the device of claim 15, wherein a recess (107) has a sloped sidewall (107) adjacent to the first mesa and a vertical sidewall adjacent to the second mesa (107, although the side wall is slopped on the second mesa the examiner still considers it a vertical side wall because it extends upward in the vertical direction).
As for Claim 19, Yanagawa teaches the device of claim 12, wherein a width of the slot is greater than a diameter of the optical fiber (See Figure 13: width of 102).
As for Claim 20, Yanagawa teaches the device of claim 12, wherein a depth of the slot is less than a depth of the recess (Figure 13: 107 and 102).
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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent to Yanagawa 4,900,118US.
Regarding Claim 7, Yanagawa teaches the device of claim 1, Yanagawa does not teach wherein a maximum width of the v-groove is smaller than a width of the slot.
It would have been an obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as matter of choice to modify the v-groove to have a smaller width than the slot for applications wherein the fibers on one side may contain a coating and the other side contain a bare fiber similar to Figure 51. This will allow the slot and v-groove to better hold the fiber in place for different diameters applications and improve alignment for mismatching diameters of fibers, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of the component. A change of size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Claim 14, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent to Yanagawa 4,900,118US in view of the US Patent Application Publication to Law 2003/0217476US.
In regards to Claims 14, 16 and 17, Yanagawa teaches the device of claim 12 wherein and adhesive (Column 10, lines 25-50) is place over the fiber to hold the fiber in both slot (102) and the v-groove (113); the adhesive is placed over the second end of the optical fiber (See 113 and 102); wherein the adhesive surrounds a perimeter of the optical and fills the recess (Figure 13: 102, 103, 113 107 and Column 10, lines 25-50); wherein the adhesive forms a cone around a portion of the optical fiber extending out of the slot (See Figure 13: 102 and Column 10, lines 25-50).
Yanagawa does not teach wherein the adhesive is an epoxy.
Law teaches using an epoxy within v-groove or slot groove structure over a fiber to hold the fiber in place ([0020] and [0028]). The application using epoxy allows the adhesive to easily cured and improve alignment with the optical device for optical coupling. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Yanagawa adhesive to be an epoxy to allow for fast curing and improve alignment of the optical fiber coupling within the grooves or slots.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/08/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In this instant, the applicant argued the prior art of Yanagawa does not teach the newly amended limitations of “a slot in the second mesa, the slot having a planar bottom surface, wherein the v-groove is aligned with the slot” (Remarks Pages 6 and 7).
The examiner respectfully disagrees, in Figure 14 below, Yanagawa teaches a v-groove, 1st and 2nd mesa, a slot in the 2nd mesa. Figure 14 the bottom surface of the slot appears to be to slanted planar surface. However, even if the bottom surface of 14 is not planar, Yanagawa illustrates in Figures 20 or 38 (annotated below) that the bottom surface may have planar surface that is horizontally flat or planar.
Thus, the grounds of rejection to claims 1 and 12 are still rejectable in view of the reason(s) detail above.
PNG
media_image2.png
370
736
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
428
826
media_image3.png
Greyscale
This action is therefore made FINAL.
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 HOANG Q TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5049. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 am - 5:30pm Monday - Friday.
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 5712722397. 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.
/HOANG Q TRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2874
/UYEN CHAU N LE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874