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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group III (i.e., claims 15-20, 21-34) in the reply filed on 1/4/26 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claims 15, 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 15 line 3, “though” should be “through”.
In the last line of claim 18, “second coupler” should be “second edge coupler”.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 20160238801; “Lee”).
Regarding claim 15, Lee teaches a method for measuring an optical die, comprising: receiving a substrate 110/120 (e.g., fig. 2; ¶ 0083: bonding pads 140 on the substrate 110/120) comprising at least a first edge coupler {EC} (e.g., fig. 2; ¶ 0059; 1st EC is at sidewall 126 in groove 125), wherein the first edge coupler (e.g., fig. 2; ¶ 0059; 1st EC is at sidewall 126 in groove 125) is exposed though a first sidewall 126 of a trench 125 (e.g., fig. 2); forming a first reflective layer 130 over a second sidewall of the trench (e.g., fig. 2; micro-mirror 130 is formed on a 2nd sidewall that is opposite the 1st sidewall 126), wherein the second sidewall is opposite to the first sidewall (e.g., fig. 2; micro-mirror 130 is formed on a 2nd sidewall that is opposite the 1st sidewall 126); introducing a first incident light to the first reflective layer to form a first reflected light (e.g., fig. 2; ¶ 0084 states that a surface receiving photodetector {PD} may be used for active element 150), wherein the first reflected light is directed toward the first edge coupler (e.g., Lee claim 1 states “a micro-mirror having at least one slanted side surface inclined to a range of 30° to 60° with respect to the bottom surface and cemented on the bottom of the groove to reflect light exits horizontally from the core layer to the groove and turn the light path vertically toward upper side of the groove”; in fig. 2, the upper side of the groove is where, according to ¶ 0084, a PD active optical element 150 is located to receive the light turned by the mirror 130). So, Lee teaches receiving light from the first edge coupler (e.g., fig. 2; light exits from the core at the 1st sidewall 126 and is reflected by mirror 130 toward PD active optical element 150; ¶ 0084)
Lee does not explicitly state the light received from the 1st edge coupler by the LD 150 (discussed above) provides: a 1st measurement result and “measuring an optical die”.
However, it was extremely well-known that PDs measure the intensity of light. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use LD 150 taught by Lee to measure light intensity at least for the purpose of using a PD for one of its main functions of measuring light intensity. By measuring the light intensity, LD 150 provides a 1st measurement result. Moreover, it is also extremely well-known LDs to comprise an optical die. So, if the optical die 150 (e.g., fig. 2; ¶ 0083 stated element 150 is die-bonded or flip-chip bonded to bonding pads 140; thus element 150 is a die/chip) is not properly aligned with the mirror 130 in Lee fig. 2, the intensity measurement taken by PD 150 will measure whether the optical die 150, the mirror 130 and the core 122 are aligned well enough to have adequate coupling, so, in this sense, the positioning/alignment of the optical die 150 is being measured (if die 150 is misaligned a weak intensity signal will be detected by PD 150). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to state that the positioning/alignment of the optical die 150 is being measured; by measuring the alignment position of optical die 150, it is correctly said that the step of measuring an optical die 150 (measuring the alignment of optical die 150 in accord with the intensity measurement made by die 150) is an obvious step.
Thus claim 15 is rejected.
Regarding claim 16, Lee renders as obvious the method of claim 15. Furthermore, Lee teaches wherein an included angle is formed by the first incident light and a side surface of the first reflective layer (e.g., fig. 2; the light path changing direction at mirror 130 side surface 131 has an included angle).
Thus claim 16 is rejected.
Regarding claim 17, Lee renders as obvious the method of claim 15. Furthermore, Lee teaches wherein the first reflective layer 130 is tilted (e.g., fig. 2).
Thus claim 17 is rejected.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21-34 are allowed.
Claims 18-20 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. Claims 18-20 allowance is contingent upon overcoming the claim objections above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mr. Michael Mooney whose telephone number is 571-272-2422. The examiner can normally be reached during weekdays, M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Uyen-Chau Le can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Center. Should you have questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). For checking the filing status of an application, please refer to <https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/checking-application-status/check-filing-status-your-patent-application>.
/MICHAEL P MOONEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874