DETAILED ACTION
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 § 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.
Claims 1, 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (“Huang”) (US Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0020416) in view of Byrd et al. (“Byrd”) (US Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0041576).
Regarding claim 1, Huang discloses an optical modulator in which an electro-optical conversion element and a driver circuit for driving the electro-optical conversion element are housed in the same case (fig. 6 elements 640 and paragraphs 0033-0034, where being part of the same chip reads on “housed in the same case”), comprising: a multiplexer that converts an input modulation signal, which is input from an outside of the case, into an output modulation signal having a higher frequency than the input modulation signal, and supplies the output modulation signal to the driver circuit, wherein the multiplexer and the driver circuit are disposed on a flip-chip substrate (paragraph 0033), the flip-chip substrate is housed in the case (fig. 6 elements 660, where the data signals arriving from outside the chip reads on “outside of the case”, in light of fig. 2 element 240 and paragraph 0020, where the multiplexer is inputting more than one data signals from the data bus and directing an output signal for the modulator). The multiplexing inherently results in at least more, i.e., a higher frequency of, bits per symbol than any one of input data streams. Huang does not disclose that the input modulation signal is transmitted using a flexible printed circuit provided on the outside of the case. Byrd discloses a flexible printed circuit for conveying external signals to an optical transceiver circuit (fig. 1A element 165 and paragraph 0051). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a flexible printed circuit to convey the data signals to the chip of Huang, since flexible printed circuits allow for more arrangement options, compact packaging, etc.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Huang and Byrd discloses the optical modulator according to claim 1, wherein the multiplexer is parallel/serial conversion means (Huang: fig. 6 elements 660 in light of fig. 2 element 240 and paragraph 0020, where an N:1 multiplexer reads on parallel/serial conversion).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Huang and Byrd discloses the optical modulator according to claim 1, but does not expressly state that the flip-chip bonding is separating the electro-optical conversion element from the multiplex and driver circuit. However, fig. 6 discloses the modulators 640 with the larger chip boundary and the multiplexers and drivers on the smaller chip boundary CMOS circuitry 620. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to flip-chip bond these elements for the flip-chip configuration mentioned by Huang, since fig. 6 shows the alignment of the two chip components.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 23 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Huang does not disclose the multiplexer and the driver circuit are disposed on a flip-chip substrate, the flip-chip substrate is housed in the case. This argument is not persuasive because its conclusory, without addressing the corresponding citation to Huang on the merits, as presented in the rejection. As for Huang not disclosing the input modulation signal is transmitted using a flexible printed circuit provided on the outside of the case, the argument against Huang is persuasive because the limitation is rejected based on the combination of Huang and Byrd, not Huang alone.
Applicant also argues that Byrd does not teach the input modulation signal is transmitted using a flexible printed circuit provided on the outside of the case, an electro-optical conversion element and a driver circuit for driving the electro-optical conversion element are housed in the same case, and the multiplexer and the driver circuit are disposed on a flip-chip substrate, the flip-chip substrate is housed in the case. For the first of these limitations, the argument is conclusory, without addressing the corresponding citation to Byrd on the merits, or the rationale of the combination with Huang, as presented in the rejections. For the latter two of these limitations, the argument against Byrd is not persuasive because Huang is cited for them, not Byrd.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 8 are 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.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 NATHAN M CORS whose telephone number is (571)272-3028. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Kenneth Vanderpuye can be reached at 571-272-3078. 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.
/NATHAN M CORS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2634