The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s amendments and remarks filed 4/13/26 are acknowledged. Claims 1 – 8 and 11 – 13 have been amended. Claims 1 – 20 are pending.
Response to Amendments / Arguments
Applicant's amendments have obviated the previously-raised objections to claims 1 – 20.
Applicant's amendments have obviated the previously-raised rejections under 35 USC 102 based on Chen and necessitated new rejections under 35 USC 102 based on O’Brien.
Applicant's arguments regarding the amended claims versus the previously-raised rejections under 35 USC 103(a) based on Chen as the primary reference have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new grounds of rejections, as necessitated by Applicant’s amendments, the new grounds of rejections based on O’Brien as the primary reference. While Chen discloses a demountable connection for a horizontally-disposed/oriented optical connector, O’Brien discloses a demountable connection for a vertically-disposed/oriented optical connector, wherein a foundation body permits incident light to pass therethrough to/from a top surface from/to a bottom surface of the foundation body in order to establish optical connection to an underlying photonic circuit device.
Applicant’s request/suggestion for a phone interview was noted, but deemed premature because the 4/13/26 was already filed and no agreement was reached during the 11/24/25 interview. If upon reviewing this Office Action, Applicant formulates a way(s) to advance the prosecution of the instant application and suggests an interview agenda, an interview may be conducted in due course.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 – 4, 7, 9, 15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by O’Brien (US 2019/0377142 A1).
Regarding claim 1, O’Brien discloses (Figs. 4A and 9 – 12; para. 0057 – 0065) a demountable connection for an optical fiber connector 2 and an optical connection point 1 (an optical input port of the photonic chip 1 in Fig. 4A and 24 in Fig. 11; para. 0056 and 0057), the demountable connection comprising:
a foundation 20,21,22,28 provided along an optical path between the optical connector 2 and the optical connection point (the optical input port of the photonic chip 1, as shown in Fig. 4B), supporting the optical connector 2 in optical alignment (by using alignment pins 21,22) to the optical connection point (as shown in Fig. 3A and 4B), and to facilitate demountable connection of the optical connector 2 to the foundation 20,21,22,28,
wherein the foundation 20,21,22,28 comprises:
a foundation body 20,28 (made of a transparent material, e.g., silicone; Fig. 11; para. 0065) permitting incident light along the optical path to pass therethrough to/from a top surface from/to a bottom surface of the foundation body 28 (in the orientation of Figs. 11 and 12), wherein the foundation body 20,28 is provided with at least one optical element 20 (microlenses) to reshape (as shown in Fig. 4B; “The micro lens 20 is in effect an optical receiver/transmitter that receives an optical signal from an optical source, such as an optical fiber” at para. 0061; if a high index or transparent material 28 is used to form the lens (for example Silicon or high index glass), the silicone can fully encapsulate the complete assembly” at para. 0062) and/or redirect incident light between the optical connector 2 and the optical connection point (on the chip 1), and passive alignment features 21,22 (“an optic device 20 and two location pins 21, 22 to enable accurate alignment of the optical fiber connector with respect to the micro optics 20” at para. 0059) on a (top) surface of the foundation 20,28 (as shown in Fig. 11 and 12) to provide demountable connection to matching passive alignment features (holes) of the optical connector 2 (“the micro optics 4 at the fibre end as shown in FIG. 5b can comprise two female portions or slots dimensioned to receive the pins 21 and 22 in a complementary fashion to physically secure and/or guide the fibre end to the package system. The pins 21, 22 can fit in a snap fit fashion or other suitable fastening mechanism” at para. 0064),
wherein a position of the optical element 20 (microlenses) is defined relative to the passive alignment features 21,22 on the foundation body 20,28 so as to maintain optical alignment for demountable connection of the optical connector 2 to the foundation 20,21,22,28 (para. 0059 – 0061), and wherein the foundation 20,21,22,28 is attached to the optical connection point (of the photonic chip 1) (by transparent material 28; para. 0062 and 0065).
Regarding claim 2, O’Brien teaches (Fig. 11) that the foundation body 20,28 comprises an optically transparent substrate 28 (transparent body, e.g., formed by transparent silicon; Fig. 11; para. 0065) having passive alignment features 21,22 (alignment pins) integrally formed on a top surface of the substrate facing the optical connector 2 to be attached (by the alignment pins 21,22) to the foundation 20,28.
Regarding claim 3, O’Brien teaches (Fig. 11) that the substrate 28 comprises a unitary, monolithic body that is provided with the optical element 20 (microlenses) and the passive alignment features 21,22 (alignment pins).
As relevant comments, it is also noted that:
(i) Claim 3 does not require the optical element and/or the passive alignment features to be monolithically formed with the unitary, monolithic body.
(ii) The optical element 20 (microlenses) may be monolithically formed with the unitary, monolithic body 28 (“Furthermore, as shown in FIG. 11, if a high index or transparent material 28 is used to form the lens (for example Silicon or high index glass)” at para. 0062).
Regarding claim 4, O’Brien teaches (para. 0059 – 0061) that the optical element 20 comprises at least one of a lens to reshape and/or redirect light between the optical connector 2 and the optical connection point (of the photonic chip 1).
Regarding claim 7, O’Brien teaches (Fig. 11; para. 0059 – 0061) that the optical element 20 comprises an array of discrete optical elements (microlenses).
Regarding claim 9, O’Brien teaches (Fig. 11; para. 0059 – 0061) that the passive alignment features 21,22 and the optical element 20 are integrally defined on the foundation body 20,28 with geometries and relative positions defined in a final forming step (during which the substrate 28 with the optical element 20 is formed), so as to accurately define the alignment relationship of the passive alignment features 21,22 relative to the optical element 20 (“as shown in FIG. 11, if a high index or transparent material 28 is used to form the lens (for example Silicon or high index glass)” at para. 0062).
Regarding claim 15, O’Brien teaches (Fig. 11) that the foundation 20,21,22,28 is fixedly attached (via a metal leadframe; para. 0059, 0061, and 0063) in reference to the optical connection point (of the photonic chip 1) to provide an optical alignment reference to the optical connector 2.
Regarding claim 19, O’Brien teaches all of the recited limitations, as detailed above for claim 7 and 9 whose limitations are comprised in claim 19.
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Brien in view of Howard et al (US 2010/0135618 A1).
Regarding claim 5, O’Brien teaches the alignment features 21,22 on the top surface of the transparent substrate 28, the latter being inseparably connected the photonic chip 1. However, Howard discloses (Figs. 2, 3, 11, and 12; Abstract; para. 0033 – 0037, 0040, and 0041) a foundation 20 that is provided along an optical path between an optical fiber array 90 and an optical connection point 80 (e.g., a laser/VCSEL or a photodetector array 102, para. 0043 and 0046) and supports the optical fiber array 90 in optical alignment to the optical connection point (by using alignment pins 42; “The main body 22 also has at least two guide pins 42 to align the unitary fiber optic ferrule 20 with respect to the adapter 60 and the optical component portion 80, as described below” at para. 0033). Howard expressly teaches (Figs. 11 and 12) that the entire foundation 20 can be formed by molding as a unitary, monolithic body/substrate that is provided with an optical element (redirecting/focusing mirrors 34 in Fig. 11) and passive alignment features (alignment pins 42 in Fig. 12) on the bottom surface of the substrate 20 for alignment and coupling with an underlying leadframe 87 (“The unitary fiber optic ferrule 20 is molded in a single mold and does not require any assembly. The main body 22, lenses 34, the first opening 30, and pocket 38 are all molded at the same time” at para. 0034, emphasis added).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the substrate 28 can be formed, in accordance with the teachings of Howard, separately from the underlying leadframe and be coupled to it by passive alignment features (e.g., pins) formed on a bottom surface of the substrate which will be attached to the opticla connection points (of the underlying photonic chip 1). The motivation is that a wider variety of materials can be use for the substrate 28, including materials whose processing involve temperatures that are too high for the photonic chip 1 and may damage its components.
It is also noted that it has been held by courts that making parts integral or separate is within the ordinary skill in the art (In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965); In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961) (MPEP 2144.04, Section V, B and C).
Regarding claim 6, the O’Brien – Howard combination considers that the passive alignment features are grouped in two sets (one set over the top surface (as 21,22 in O’Brien) and the other set below the bottom surface (as 42 in Howard)), with each set near the opposite ends on the respective surfaces of the substrate, wherein between the passive alignment features, the optical element (20 in O’Brien; 34 in Howard) is integrally formed on the substrate.
Regarding claim 8, the O’Brien – Howard combination considers that the foundation can comprise a combination of different optical elements, e.g., transmission-type microlenses (20 in O’Brien) and redirecting lensed mirrors (34 in Howard; Fig. 11) having combined optical properties that produce desired light beam quality and direction.
Regarding claim 10, the O’Brien – Howard combination considers that the foundation is configured for demountable edge coupling of the optical connector 2 to waveguides of the photonic device 1 ending at an edge of the optical connection point (“the optical component 102 may also be a waveguide intended to emit or receive light” at para. 0043 of Howard), wherein the foundation comprises at least one reflective surface (redirecting lensed mirrors 34 in Howard; Fig. 11).
Regarding claim 11, the O’Brien – Howard combination illustrates embodiments with microlenses disposed on the top and on protrusions of side surfaces of the foundation (Fig. 11 of Howard) and generally renders obvious that additional lenses may be disposed on other surfaces along an optical path across them, including the bottom of the foundation body.
The O’Brien – Howard combination also renders obvious that the optical connector can have an alignment cover plate (corresponding to 4 in Fig. 4A of O’Brien) that is formed with passive alignment features (alignment holes) facing the passive alignment features 21,22 (alignment pins) on the top surface of the foundation body, wherein the foundation acts as a transparent bridge to direct and reshape the light between the optical connector and the edge of the optical connection point.
Regarding claims 16 and 17, the O’Brien – Howard combination considers that the optical connection point comprises an optoelectronic device (102 in Howard, e.g., a VCSEL; para. 0046), wherein the optoelectronic device comprises a photonic integrated circuit (PIC) chip with an optical waveguide (“an optical component assembly 100 that includes an optical component 102, which may include either a vertical cavity surface emitting laser (VCSEL) or a detector array, depending on whether the optical component assembly 100 is to emit or receive light. Additionally, the optical component 102 may also be a waveguide intended to emit or receive light. The optical component 102 is supported by a circuit substrate 104 and connected to drivers (not shown) by appropriate connectors (not shown)” at para. 0043 of Howard).
Claims 12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Brien in view of Badihi et al (US 2016/0370544 A1).
Regarding claim 12, O’Brien illustrates (Fig. 4A) an embodiment with an optically transparent insert 4 intervening between the optical connector 2 and the optical connection point (of the photonic device 1). While O’Brien does not detail a material for such insert, Badihi discloses (Figs. 1 – 3, 6 – 11, and 15; para. 0058 – 0090, 0103 – 0115, and 0119) a demountable connection for an optical connector and an optical connection point (a PIC chip in Figs. 2 and 8) and teaches both an embodiment(s) with a single body/substrate with optical elements (lenses 48 and/or reflecting/redirecting mirror 153, as in Figs. 2 and 3) and an embodiment(s) with an additional body/substrate with optical elements (lenses 57 in Fig. 6; 2 bodies/substrates with optical elements/lenses in Figs. 8 and 9). Badihi expressly teaches that such additional body/substrate (162 in Figs. 8 and 9) can be an optically transparent glass or silicon insert (“Although in the above description substrates 62 and 162 are described as being silicon substrates, other materials transparent to the wavelengths selected for the SiP communication, may be used instead of silicon. Such transparent materials may include, for example, plastic materials, Germanium, Sapphire, Glass …” at para. 0115).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the foundation in O’Brien can be modified to further comprise an optically transparent glass or silicon insert, as a suitable/workable design choice that is explicitly illustrated by Badihi and provides an expanded-beam arrangement (created by two sets of lenses 48) that is less sensitive to misalignment (due to an expanded beam) and has flexibility in selecting an orientation of output waveguides/fibers (as shown in Figs. 8 and 9 of Badihi).
The O’Brien – Badihi combination considers that the foundation further comprises an optically transparent glass or silicon insert (according to Badihi), which has an optically transparent body (as seen in Figs. 8 and 9 of Badihi). The O’Brien – Badihi combination considers that the optically transparent glass or silicon insert must be aligned with the optical transparent substrate and renders obvious that such alignment can be accomplished by passive alignment features (alignment pins or holes) integrally defined in the optically transparent glass or silicon insert to facilitate direct connection to the optical connection point.
In light of the foregoing analysis, the O’Brien – Badihi combination teaches expressly or renders obvious all of the recited limitations.
Regarding claim 18, The teachings of O’Brien and Badihi combine (see the arguments and motivation for combining, as provided above for claim 12) to teach expressly or render obvious all of the recited limitations, as detailed above for claim 12. Specifically, O’Brien – Badihi combination considers that the foundation can further comprise an interposer (an optically transparent glass or silicon insert, according to Badihi) for guiding light to/from the exit ends of an array of waveguides (36 in Fig. 2 of Badihi) at a top or bottom surface of an optoelectronic device (a laser or photodetector at para. 0004 of Chen; optoelectronic devices 302,304 in Fig. 7 of Badihi which can be a laser(s) and/or a photodetector; para. 0059 and 0104), wherein the interposer comprises the array of optical elements (lenses) for guiding light from the optical connector and prongs (alignment pins) on both sides of the array of optical elements, extending outwards over the top or bottom surface of the optoelectronic device, and wherein the prongs are integrally formed with passive alignment features for passive alignment with the passive alignment features defined on the surface of the optoelectronic device, thereby optically aligning the array of optical elements to the array of waveguides.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Brien.
Regarding claim 13, O’Brien teaches (Fig. 4A; para. 0056 and 0057) an embodiment with a spacer 4, and renders obvious that the foundation body can comprise separate bodies 3,4, which are separately provided with the passive alignment features (alignment pins in 3 and alignment holes in 4) and the optical element (microlenses in both 3 and 4; “FIG. 5b is experimental data showing tolerance of a micro lens 3 coupled to a photonic device 1 and a second micro lens 4 coupled to an optical fiber 1” at para. 0057). Furthermore, O’Brien renders obvious embodiments wherein the alignment pins are disposed outside the foundation body 28, if the photonic device 1 and the foundation body 28 covering it are rather narrow (to reduce material consumption). In this case, the foundation body comprises separate bodies (e.g., 28 and 21,22) that are spatially separate along the transverse (horizontal direction).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Brien in view of Chen et al (US 2020/0124798 A1).
Regarding claim 14, O’Brien illustrates (Fig. 11) only embodiments passive alignment features implemented as pins 21,22 (and holes in the optical connector 2). However, Chen discloses (Figs. 1A – 1D, 2A and 2B; Abstract; para. 0030 – 0039) a demountable connection E for an optical connector C and an optical connection point P (“The edge coupler provides a demountable, passively aligned coupling between an optical fiber array and the PIC chip” in the Abstract), comprising:
a foundation B (detailed in Fig. 1A) provided along an optical path between the optical connector E and the optical connection point P (a PIC chip), supporting the optical connector C in optical alignment (by using alignment pins A) to the optical connection point P (as shown in Fig. 1C), and to facilitate demountable connection of the optical connector C to the foundation B (“with the edge coupler E configured and structured to allow the optical fiber connector C to be removed and removably attached for reconnection to the edge coupler E in optical alignment therewith” at para. 0034), wherein the foundation B comprises at least one optical element M (light-redirecting mirrors shown in Fig. 1A) to reshape (“The structured reflective surface profile of the mirrors M and/or the mirrors MINI may be configured to reshape the light beam from the PIC chip P to produce a mode field that more closely match the mode field of the optical fibers in the optical fiber connector C” at para. 0044) and/or redirect incident light (from/to L1 to/from L2, as seen in Fig. 1A; “Each mirror M includes a structured reflective surface profile that turns light (e.g., by 90 degrees) between a first light path L1 along a first (horizontal) direction in a plane substantially parallel to the top surface and a second light path L2 along a second (vertical) direction outside the plane” at para. 0032) between the optical connector C and the optical connection point P, and passive alignment features A (alignment pins shown in Fig. 1A; “a passive alignment structure A on the base B” at para. 0032) on a (top) surface of the foundation B to provide demountable connection to matching passive alignment features AA (alignment holes shown in Figs. 2A and 2B) of the optical connector C (“In FIGS. 1B and 2B, the optical fiber connector C comprises a passive alignment structure AA complementary to the passive alignment structure A on the edge coupler E” at para. 0049; also para. 0019),
wherein a position of the optical element M is defined relative to the passive alignment features A on the foundation B so as to define optical alignment in reference to the passive alignment features A on the foundation B for maintaining optical alignment for demountable connection of the optical connector C to the foundation B (the mirrors M are accurately positioned/aligned relative to the alignment pins A of the foundation B in order to ensure optical alignment of the fibers OF in the optical connector C and the optical elements W (e.g., waveguides) in the optical connection point P, as shown in Fig. 1D; para. 0035 – 0037 and 0039 – 0043).
While Fig. 1A of Chen shows, by way of example but not limitation, that the passive alignment features A may be structured as alignment pins (similarly to O’Brien), Chen teaches that the passive alignment features A may be structured and configured to provide mechanical alignment based on one of kinematic alignment, quasi-kinematic alignment and elastic averaging alignment (“In one embodiment, the passive alignment structure A on the edge coupler E may comprise at least one of alignment pins, alignment pin holes and surface features (not shown) to provide a kinematic coupling, a quasi-kinematic coupling or an elastic averaging coupling. The complementary passive alignment structure AA on the optical fiber connector may comprise at least one of complementary alignment pin holes, alignment pins, and surface features (not shown) to provide a kinematic coupling, a quasi-kinematic coupling or an elastic averaging coupling, complementary to the corresponding passive alignment structure of the edge coupler. US Patent Publication No. US2016/0161686A1, commonly assigned to the assignee of the present invention, discloses demountable optical connector structure including examples of kinematic coupling, quasi-kinematic coupling and elastic averaging coupling” at para. 0049).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the passive alignment features in O’Brien can be structured and configured to provide mechanical alignment based on one of kinematic alignment, quasi-kinematic alignment and elastic averaging alignment, as suitable/workable design choices listed by Chen.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Brien in view of Badihi, and further in view of Chen.
Regarding claim 20, the teachings of O’Brien, Badihi, and Chen combine (see the arguments and motivation for combining, as provided above for claims 12 and 14) to teach expressly or render obvious all of the recited limitations, as detailed above for claims 12, 14, 16, and 17. Specifically, the O’Brien – Badihi – Chen combination considers that the foundation can comprise an optically transparent glass or silicon insert (taught by Badihi), which has an optically transparent body integrally defined with passive alignment features and the optical element to facilitate direct connection to the optical connection point, wherein the passive alignment features are structured and configured to provide mechanical alignment based on one of kinematic alignment, quasi-kinematic alignment and elastic averaging alignment (taught by Chen); wherein the optical connection point comprises an optoelectronic device, wherein the optoelectronic device comprises a photonic integrated circuit (PIC) chip (taught by Chen; Abstract).
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT TAVLYKAEV whose telephone number is (571)270-5634. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 am - 6:00 pm, 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, William Kraig can be reached on (571)272-8660. 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.
/ROBERT TAVLYKAEV/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
Prosecution Insights