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 § 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.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 17 recites the broad recitation “an active optical component”, and the claim also recites “such as a semiconductor laser, and optical amplifier, or an optical modulator” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
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 1, 5, 7, and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0154931 (“MASTERS”) in view of US 2022/0373742 (“KIM”).
Regarding claim 1, MASTERS teaches a method for manufacturing an optical coupling arrangement (FIG. 2D), the method comprising: providing a first optical component (240) having a transmitting facet (left-hand side of element 142; par. [0058]), configured to transmit a light beam with a beam divergence corresponding to a first numerical aperture out of the transmitting facet (intrinsic to the photonics of the first optical component; par. [0058]); providing a second optical component (110 ) with a second numerical aperture (intrinsic of the optical fibers of the second optical component; par. [0056]), having a receiving facet (right-hand side of 111), configured to receive light via the receiving facet (par. [0056]); providing a glass coupler preform body (130; par. [0060]) having a receiving side surface and an opposite transmitting side surface(FIG. 2D); positioning the first and second optical components with the transmitting and receiving facets facing each other mutually misaligned by an optical component misalignment (FIG. 2D; pars. [0107], [0113]); positioning the coupler preform body between the first and the second optical components (FIG. 2D); determining the optical component and preform misalignments (par. [0061]); designing, on the basis of the determined misalignments, the first and the second numerical aperture, and/or converging characteristics, a coupling waveguide (238) between the transmitting facet and an output facet on the transmitting side surface facing and being aligned with the receiving facet (FIG. 2D); and forming at least part of the designed coupling waveguide in the coupler preform body by direct laser writing (par. [0103]).
MASTERS does not teach a converging member configured to reduce, in accordance with converging characteristics, the beam divergence of the light beam entering the glass coupler preform body via the receiving side surface, with the converging member and the transmitting facet facing each other mutually misaligned by a preform misalignment. KIM teaches a converging member (420) configured to reduce, in accordance with converging characteristics, a beam divergence of a light beam entering a glass coupler preform body (101) via a receiving side surface, with the converging member and a transmitting facet facing each other mutually misaligned by a preform misalignment (FIGs. 1, 4B). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to modify the method of MASTERS with the converging member of KIM. The motivation would have been to improve optical coupling.
Regarding claim 5, KIM teaches that the converging member comprises a lens (par. [0051]).
Regarding claim 7, KIM teaches that the converging member forms a local extension outwards of the receiving side surface (FIGs. 1, 4B).
Regarding claim 11, MASTERS teaches that the coupling waveguide is designed so as to narrow towards the output facet (FIG. 19).
Regarding claim 12, MASTERS teaches that the coupling waveguide is designed so as to have at least one curved section (FIG. 19).
Regarding claim 13, MASTERS teaches that the coupling waveguide is designed so as to have at least one curved section narrowing towards the output facet (FIG. 19).
Regarding claim 14, MASTERS teaches that the coupler preform body is provided so as to comprise a prefabricated waveguide section (238), and the coupling waveguide is designed so as to comprise the prefabricated waveguide section (FIG. 2D).
Regarding claim 15, MASTERS teaches that the coupling waveguide is designed so as to have a first end at the side of the receiving side surface and a second end at the side of the transmitting side surface, at least one of the first and the second ends lying at a separation distance from the transmitting or receiving side surface, respectively (FIG. (2D).
Regarding claim 16, MASTERS teaches that the separation distance lies in the range of 2 to 25 µm (par. [0127]).
Regarding claim 17, MASTERS teaches that the first optical component comprises an active optical component, such as a semiconductor laser, an optical amplifier, or an optical modulator (par. [0058]).
Regarding claim 18, KIM teaches that at least one of the first and the second optical components comprises a waveguide of a photonic integrated circuit (par. [0034]).
Regarding claim 19, KIM teaches that the first optical component and the second optical component comprise arrays of pluralities of transmitting and receiving facets, respectively; the coupler preform body comprises an array of a plurality of converging members; and the method comprises designing a plurality of coupling waveguides between the beam converging members and output facets on the transmitting side surface facing and being aligned with the receiving facets to transmit light received by the converging members to the receiving facets; and forming at least part of each of the designed coupling waveguides in the coupler preform body by direct laser writing (par. [0051]).
Regarding claim 20, MASTERS does not explicitly teach that in the forming the designed waveguides in the coupler preform, a laser beam is split into several sub-beams, and the plurality of designed waveguides are formed simultaneously by the sub-beams. However, such a modification appears to involve mere duplication of parts. It has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.
In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to split the laser beam of MASTERS into several sub-beams, with a plurality of designed waveguides formed simultaneously by the sub-beams.
Claims 2-4 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MASTERS in view of KIM as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of
US 2007/0237453 (“NIELSON”).
Regarding claims 2-4, MASTERS does not explicitly teach that the second numerical aperture is smaller than the first numerical aperture. However, MASTERS does teach that the second optical component having the second numerical aperture contains optical fibers (par. [0056]), whereas the first optical component having the first numerical aperture contains photonics (par. [0058]). NIELSON further teaches optical fibers having a smaller numerical aperture relative to photonics (par. [0259]), such that the second numerical aperture of NIELSON would be lower than that of the first numerical aperture. Furthermore, by the same reasoning the coupling waveguide of MASTERS, when modified by the teachings of NIELSON, would have a numerical aperture lower than that of the first numerical aperture of the photonics of the first optical component and equal to the second numerical aperture of the optical fibers of the second optical component.
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to explicitly have the second numerical aperture of MASTERS be lower than that of the first numerical aperture, and for the coupling waveguide to have a numerical aperture lower than the first numerical aperture and equal to the second numerical aperture, as suggested by NIELSON. The motivation would have been to improve optical coupling.
Regarding claim 10, MASTERS does not teach that the first numerical aperture is at least 0.2. NIELSON teaches photonics, associated with the first numerical aperture of MASTERS, having a numerical aperture of at least 0.2 (par. [0259]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to modify the first numerical aperture of MASTERS so as to be at least 0.2, as suggested by NIELSON. The motivation would have been to improve optical coupling.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MASTERS in view of KIM as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of US 2021/0305541 (“AHN”).
MASTERS does not teach that the lens comprises an elliptical cylindrical lens. AHN teaches an elliptical cylindrical lens (pars. [0102], [0104], [0126]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to modify the lens of MASTERS in view of KIM with the elliptical cylindrical lens of AHN. The motivation would have been to achieve a desired convergence profile.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MASTERS in view of KIM as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of
US 2019/0258175 (“DIETRICH”).
MASTERS does not teach that the converging member is formed within the coupler preform body by direct laser writing. DIETRICH teaches a converging member (27) formed within a coupler preform body (10) by direct laser writing (FIG. 27; pars. [0195]-[0198]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to modify the converging member of MASTERS in view of KIM so as to be formed within the coupler preform body by direct laser writing, as taught by DIETRICH. The motivation would have been to achieve desired beam-shaping properties (par. [0110]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JERRY M BLEVINS whose telephone number is (571)272-8581. 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, Thomas Hollweg can be reached at 571-270-1739. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/JERRY M BLEVINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874