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.
Claims 1 – 8, 11 – 15 and 17 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Patel et al. (U.S. Patent # 9,995,881 B1).
In Re claims 1 and 19, ‘881 teaches an integrated circuit package, comprising: a photonic integrated circuit (140 or 200) (PIC) to send or receive optical signals, wherein the PIC comprises a first interface (215); and an optical coupler (400) to optically couple the PIC to one or more optical fibers, wherein the optical coupler comprises a second interface (415) coupled to the first interface on the PIC; wherein one of the first interface or the second interface comprises: at least two recesses (215A, 215D); and one or more grooves (215B, 215C) positioned between the recesses; wherein the other of the first interface or the second interface comprises: at least two protrusions (436A, 436D), wherein the protrusions are mated with the recesses; and one or more ridges (436B, 436C) positioned between the protrusions, wherein the one or more ridges are mated with the one or more grooves (col. 8, lines 26 – 38).
In Re claim 2, ‘881 teaches wherein the one or more grooves and the one or more ridges are mated to align waveguides (210) in the PIC with waveguides in the optical coupler (410).
In Re claim 3, ‘881 teaches wherein: the first interface comprises the recesses and the one or more grooves; and the second interface comprises the protrusions and the one or more ridges (figs. 3B, 4).
In Re claim 4, ‘881 teaches wherein the second interface further comprises a ledge (440), wherein the ledge comprises the protrusions and the one or more ridges, and wherein the ledge extends beyond the one or more ridges (fig. 4).
In Re claim 5, ‘881 teaches wherein: the waveguides in the PIC extend to the one or more grooves (fig. 3A); and the waveguides in the optical coupler extend through the one or more ridges (seen in fig. 4, col. 8, lines 1 – 2).
In Re claim 6, ‘881 teaches wherein: the one or more grooves comprise a monolithic groove (figs. 2, 3B); and the one or more ridges comprise a monolithic ridge (figs. 4, 5).
In Re claim 7, ‘881 teaches wherein: the one or more grooves comprise a plurality of grooves; and the one or more ridges comprise a plurality of ridges (figs. 3A, 4).
In Re claim 8, ‘881 teaches wherein: the plurality of grooves vary in size; or the plurality of ridges vary in size (col. 6, lines 6 – 15).
In Re claim 11, ‘881 teaches an integrated circuit die (145), wherein the integrated circuit die is to communicate optically via the PIC, and wherein the integrated circuit die comprises processing circuitry, memory circuitry, storage circuitry, or communication circuitry (driver communicates).
In Re claims 12, ‘881 teaches a system, comprising: a circuit board (105); and an integrated circuit package (fig. 1) electrically coupled to the circuit board, wherein the integrated circuit package comprises an optical interface, wherein the optical interface comprises: a photonic integrated circuit (PIC) (140) to send or receive optical signals, wherein the PIC comprises at least two recesses (215A, 215D) and one or more grooves (215B, 215C) positioned between the recesses; and an optical coupler (400) to optically couple the PIC to one or more optical fibers (505), wherein the optical coupler comprises at least two protrusions (436A, 436D) and one or more ridges (436B, 436C) positioned between the protrusions, wherein the protrusions are mated with the recesses on the PIC, and wherein the one or more ridges are mated with the one or more grooves on the PIC (col. 8, lines 26 – 38).
In Re claim 13, ‘881 teaches wherein the one or more ridges are mated with the one or more grooves to align waveguides in the optical coupler with waveguides in the PIC (fig. 8A), wherein the waveguides in the optical coupler extend through the one or more ridges (seen in fig. 4, col. 8, lines 1 – 2), and wherein the waveguides in the PIC extend to the one or more grooves (fig. 3A).
In Re claim 14, ‘881 teaches wherein: the one or more grooves comprise a monolithic groove (figs. 2, 3B); and the one or more ridges comprise a monolithic ridge (figs. 4, 5).
In Re claim 15, ‘881 teaches wherein: the one or more grooves comprise a plurality of grooves (3A, 3B); and the one or more ridges comprise a plurality of ridges (fig. 4).
In Re claim 17, ‘881 teaches wherein the integrated circuit package further comprises an integrated circuit die (145), wherein the integrated circuit die is to communicate optically via the optical interface, and wherein the integrated circuit die comprises processing circuitry, memory circuitry, storage circuitry, or communication circuitry (col. 4, lines 21 – 24).
In Re claim 18, The patentability of an apparatus depends only on the claimed structural limitations. ‘881 teaches a structure that is substantially identical to that of the claimed invention, therefore the claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The burden is on the applicant to show that the ‘881 device does not possess these functional characteristics. See MPEP 2112.01.
In Re claim 20, ‘881 teaches and EIC (130 or 145) as claimed.
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 9, 10 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patel et al. (U.S. Patent # 9,995,881 B1).
In Re claims 9 and 16, ‘881 teaches the package or system as claimed, but is silent to polymer pads as claimed.
However, it is well known in the art to use resilient cushioning such as polymer pads, to absorb any minor variances in sizes such as height to ensure optimum contact between interfaces.
Thus, 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 package or system of ‘881 to add polymer pads as claimed to absorb any minor variances in sizes such as heights of the recesses or protrusions to ensure optimum contact between the interfaces as a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.
In Re claim 10, ‘881 teaches the package or system as claimed, but is silent to the one or more optical fibers comprised in an optical cable.
However, it is well known in the art to use a ribbon coating containing optical fibers, whereby the coating adds protection to the optical fibers, and the optical fibers are exposed from the ribbon coating at an end of the cable to allow for routing of the optical fibers at a termination.
Thus, 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 package or system of ‘881 to add a ribbon coating to the optical fibers (505) up to the edge (610) so as to adequately protect the optical fibers in a cable thus creating a more robust package or system as a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.
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