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 .
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.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 12 January, 2026 has been fully considered and entered. In response to the claim amendments, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are withdrawn. In response to the new drawings filed on 12 January, 2026, the previously raised drawings objection is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12 January, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that Examiner has improperly interpreted the titanium-oxide metalens of Wei as reading on both the claimed “oxide layer” and “a plurality of metalenses disposed in the oxide layer”.
Examiner disagrees. In Wei, while Fig. 1C shows just a box labeled 193 as representing the metalens, it is clear from the description in paragraph 0035 that there are additional components not shown in the figure, as evidenced by the teaching that the metalens comprises nanopillars, which are taught in paragraph 0035 but not shown in the figure. In paragraph 0035, the metalenses are disclosed to include a planar metasurface having nanopillars. The layer containing the metasurface, which is the metalens, also contains oxide materials. Based on this, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the structure of the metalens is not the titanium oxide material itself, but rather that the titanium oxide serves as a substrate from which the metasurface is formed, but the metalens/metasurface is actually formed by an interface including another material. Therefore, the surface is considered to be a metalens, and as the surface is disposed in a region, depicted as a grey box in Fig. 1C with the label 193 pointing to it, made of an oxide material. The box containing oxide materials is within a layer of the device. Therefore, it is a metalens disposed in an oxide layer.
Applicant asserts that Wei fails to teach a plurality of metalenses disposed in an oxide layer because layer 191 is not disclosed to be an oxide material.
The Examiner does not rely on the material composition of the layer 191 in the interpretation described in point (b). A layer describes a region of a device, generally understood to be bounded by two planes in the thickness direction of a device. An oxide layer, in its broadest reasonable interpretation, is a layer containing oxide material. The claim does not say that the layer is a continuous layer of oxide material. Therefore, the discrete regions of oxide material taught by Wei are understood to read on the claimed oxide layer without relying on the material composition of 191.
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, 9-10, 13-15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheung et al. (US Patent No. 10,756,839; hereinafter Cheung) in view of Wei et al. (US 2022/0065407; hereinafter Wei), as evidenced by Yunus (US 2004/0057648; hereinafter Yunus).
Regarding claim 1: Cheung discloses An optical apparatus comprising: a photonic integrated circuit (PIC) (Fig. 1a, optical apparatus 100 is a PIC, see col. 2, lines 59-end); a vertical cavity surface emitting laser (VCSEL) disposed on the PIC (Fig. 1a, VCSEL arrays 101); a photodetector disposed on the PIC (Fig. 1a, photodetector array 121); and a transmit multimode fiber (TX-MMF) disposed on the PIC (see Cheung col. 5, lines 23-31).
Cheung further discloses a receiver fiber (RX) disposed on the PIC (see Cheung col. 6, lines 45-50). Cheung fails to disclose that the receiver fiber whether the receiver fiber is a multimode or a single mode fiber. However, Cheung does teach that two types of optical cables can be used for optical data transmission: single-mode fiber cables and multimode fiber cables. Since both were disclosed by Cheung as being capable of transmitting optical signals, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to choose either type for the receive fiber, including a multimode fiber. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select multimode fibers because they are more cost effective and have a greater alignment tolerance due to their larger core size.
Cheung further discloses that the PIC comprises a substrate (substrate 130 and underfill layer 203) comprising a mirror (Fig. 2a, optical coupler 106a1 is a mirror; see Cheung col. 5, lines 35-38 and col. 6, lines 14-17) disposed at the base of an underfill region (Fig. 2a, underfill 203). Cheung fails to teach that the underfill layer is a polymer region. However, as evidenced by Yunus, it is conventional in the art to use a polymeric material for underfill (see Yunus paragraph 0021). It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Since it is conventional in the art to use polymeric material for underfill, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to do so in the Cheung device. In doing so, the underfill would then be considered a polymer region of the substrate, and the mirror would be disposed at a base of the polymer region.
Cheung fails to disclose an oxide layer disposed above the substrate and a plurality of metalenses disposed in the oxide layer. Rather, Cheung teaches a VCSEL directly on the underfill (see Fig. 2A). However, Wei, also related to optical coupling between a VCSEL and a waveguide (see Fig. 1C), does teach using a metalens formed in an oxide layer (see Wei paragraph 0035; metalens 193 of Fig. 1C is in an oxide layer) above a substrate (Fig. 1C, substrate 110) for collimating light from a VCSEL to improve the coupling efficiency into a waveguide (see Wei paragraph 0024). Since it was previously disclosed by Wei, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the Cheung device by providing a metalens in an oxide layer above the substrate between each of the VCSELs of the VCSEL array and the waveguides to which the light is directed. In doing so, the PIC would include a plurality of metalenses disposed in the oxide layer.
Regarding claim 13: The method for fabricating recited results in the structure of claim 1, which is obvious over Cheung, Wei, and Yunus, as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above. Since the method steps of claim 13 do not require any specific manufacturing techniques, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the recited method steps of claim 13 to fabricate the device of claim 1 using conventional manufacturing techniques well known in the art.
Regarding claims 9 and 15: Modified Cheung teachesThe optical apparatus of claim 1 (as applied above) and the method of claim 13 (as applied above), wherein the mirror comprises a metal layer (Cheung col. 5, lines 35-38).
Regarding claims 10 and 14: Modified Cheung teachesThe optical apparatus of claim 1 (as applied above) and the method of claim 13 (as applied above), wherein the mirror comprises a high reflective coating (Cheung col. 5, lines 35-38; a mirror comprising a coating is considered to comprise a high reflective coating, since the mirror works by reflecting, it would be considered “high reflective” by whatever standard is necessary/relied on for the intended application).
Regarding claim 20: Cheung disclosesA system (Figs. 1A, 1B, and 6) comprising: a first optical transceiver module (Fig. 6, network device 610); and a second optical transceiver module (Fig. 6, network device 620), wherein the first optical transceiver module is coupled to the second optical transceiver module via one or more fibers (Fig. 6, fibers 630) and wherein the first optical transceiver module comprises: a photonic integrated circuit (PIC) (Fig. 1a, optical apparatus 100 is a PIC, see Cheung col. 2, lines 59-end); a vertical cavity surface emitting laser (VCSEL) disposed on the PIC (Fig. 1a, VCSEL arrays 101); a photodetector disposed on the PIC (Fig. 1a, photodetector array 121);a first of the one or more fibers disposed on the PIC (Fig. 6 shows this); and a second of the one or more fibers disposed on the PIC (Fig. 6 shows this).
Cheung fails to teach that the fibers are multimode fibers. However, Cheung does teach that two types of optical cables can be used for optical data transmission: single-mode fiber cables and multimode fiber cables. Since both were disclosed by Cheung as being capable of transmitting optical signals, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to choose either type for the fibers, including multimode fibers. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select multimode fibers because they are more cost effective and have a greater alignment tolerance due to their larger core size.
Cheung further discloses that the PIC comprises a substrate (substrate 130 and underfill layer 203) comprising a mirror (Fig. 2a, optical coupler 106a1 is a mirror; see Cheung col. 5, lines 35-38 and col. 6, lines 14-17) disposed at the base of an underfill region (Fig. 2a, underfill 203). Cheung fails to teach that the underfill layer is a polymer region. However, as evidenced by Yunus, it is conventional in the art to use a polymeric material for underfill (see Yunus paragraph 0021). It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Since it is conventional in the art to use polymeric material for underfill, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to do so in the Cheung device. In doing so, the underfill would then be considered a polymer region of the substrate, and the mirror would be disposed at a base of the polymer region.
Cheung fails to disclose an oxide layer disposed above the substrate and a plurality of metalenses disposed in the oxide layer. Rather, Cheung teaches a VCSEL directly on the underfill (see Fig. 2A). However, Wei, also related to optical coupling between a VCSEL and a waveguide (see Fig. 1C), does teach using a metalens formed in an oxide layer (see Wei paragraph 0035; metalens 193 of Fig. 1C is in an oxide layer) above a substrate (Fig. 1C, substrate 110) for collimating light from a VCSEL to improve the coupling efficiency into a waveguide (see Wei paragraph 0024). Since it was previously disclosed by Wei, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the Cheung device by providing a metalens in an oxide layer above the substrate between each of the VCSELs of the VCSEL array and the waveguides to which the light is directed. In doing so, the PIC would include a plurality of metalenses disposed in the oxide layer.
Claims 8 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheung et al. (US Patent No. 10,756,839; hereinafter Cheung) in view of Wei et al. (US 2022/0065407; hereinafter Wei), as evidenced by Yunus (US 2004/0057648; hereinafter Yunus) and by RP Photonics Encyclopedia (p-i-n Photodiodes, RP Photonics Encyclopedia, accessed from Wayback Archive dated 11 April, 2021 of URL https://www.rp-photonics.com/p_i_n_photodiodes.html; hereinafter RP Photonics Encyclopedia).
Regarding claims 8 and 19: Modified Cheung teaches the optical apparatus of claim 1, as applied above, and the method of claim 13, as applied above. Cheung further teaches that the photodetector is a PIN diode (see Cheung col. 6, lines 35-40). Cheung fails to teach that the PIN diode is a vertical PIN diode. However, as evidenced by RP Photonics Encyclopedia, vertical PIN diodes were conventional for PIN photodiodes before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (see Fig. 1). Since Cheung generally teaches that PIN diodes are suitable structures for the photodetector, and since vertical PIN diodes are a conventional arrangement for PIN diodes, 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 vertical PIN diode for the photodetectors in the Cheung device. Doing so would have allowed one of ordinary skill in the art to manufacture the photodetector by stacking doped layers consecutively, enabling a simplified manufacturing process.
Claims 11-12 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheung et al. (US Patent No. 10,756,839; hereinafter Cheung) in view of Wei et al. (US 2022/0065407; hereinafter Wei) and further in view of Riley, JR. et al. (US 2019/0064532; hereinafter Riley), as evidenced by Yunus (US 2004/0057648; hereinafter Yunus)
Regarding claims 11 and 17: Modified Cheung teachesThe optical apparatus of claim 1 (as applied above) and the method of claim 13 (as applied above), wherein each of the plurality of metalenses comprises an array of nanostructures (see Wei paragraph 0026). Wei and Cheung fail to teach comprising a silicon nitride layer, rather suggesting an oxide material and silicon nitride for the metalens apparently in different embodiments. However, Riley, also related to metalenses for optical coupling (see abstract), does teach that a metalens may combine a metasurface material and an embedding medium, wherein the embedding medium has a lower index of refraction, and gives examples of such materials including silicon nitride as a metasurface material (Riley paragraph 0020) and silicon dioxide or titanium dioxide as an embedding medium (Riley paragraph 0027). It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Since silicon nitride has a higher refractive index than silicon dioxide and these are listed as suitable materials for forming a metalens in an embedding medium by Riley, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to select these materials based on their suitability in the modified Cheung device.
Regarding claims 12 and 16: Modified Cheung teaches the optical apparatus of claim 1 and the method of claim 13, respectively, as applied above. Wei fails to teach that the oxide layer comprises silicon dioxide, instead teaching that the oxide layer comprises titanium-oxide (see Wei paragraph 0035). However, Riley, also related to metalenses for optical coupling (see Riley abstract), does teach that a metalens may include silicon dioxide as a metasurface material (Riley paragraph 0020) or as an embedding medium (Riley paragraph 0027). It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Since it was suggested as a suitable material by Riley, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use silicon dioxide in the metalens of the modified Cheung device, either as the metasurface material or as the embedding medium, based on its known suitability for the intended application.
Regarding claim 18: Modified Cheung teachesThe method of claim 17, wherein the array of nanostructures comprises at least one of (i) one or more nanopillars or (ii) one or more nanoholes (nanopillars, see Wei paragraph 0026).
Claims 2-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheung et al. (US Patent No. 10,756,839; hereinafter Cheung) in view of Wei et al. (US 2022/0065407; hereinafter Wei) and further in view of Vancoille et al. (US 2004/0179784; hereinafter Vancoille), as evidenced by Yunus (US 2004/0057648; hereinafter Yunus).
Regarding claim 2: Modified Cheung teaches The optical apparatus of claim 1 (as applied above), wherein: the VCSEL is disposed above a first metalens of the plurality of metalenses (as described above, in the modified Cheung device a metalens is disposed beneath each VCSEL of the VCSEL array).
Further, Cheung shows transmit fibers (Fig. 5A, transmit fibers 502a-d) which appear to have lenses at the inputs. Additionally, it is conventional in the art to put lenses between optical elements through which light is coupled in order to minimize loss. Such a configuration was previously taught by Vancoille (see Fig. 1, including an optical transceiver wherein light is focused by lens 118 as it is transmitted to optical fiber 105). Since the modified Cheung device includes metalenses between the VCSEL array and the waveguides, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to also provide focusing metalenses at the inputs of the TX-MMFs in order to minimize coupling loss.
Regarding claim 3: Modified Cheung teachesThe optical apparatus of claim 2 (as applied above), wherein: the VCSEL is configured to emit an optical beam in a vertical direction through the first metalens (see Fig. 1A of Cheung and Fig. 1C of Wei; in the modified Cheung device, the VCSEL is configured to emit an optical beam in a vertical direction through the first metalens); the first metalens is configured to receive the optical beam and output a collimated optical beam towards the mirror (see Wei paragraph 0024); and the second metalens is configured to receive a reflected collimated optical beam reflected from the mirror and to output a focused optical beam into the TX-MMF (as described above, in the modified Cheung device, second metalenses are configured to receive a reflected collimated optical beam reflected from the mirror and to output a focused optical beam into the TX-MMF).
Regarding claim 4: Modified Cheung teaches the optical apparatus according to claim 3, as applied above. Wei further teaches that the first metalens is further configured to apply a tilt to the optical beam received from the VCSEL in order to improve coupling efficiency (see Wei paragraph 0022). Since it was disclosed by Wei, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, when including a metalens as taught by Wei, to further configure the metalens to apply a tilt to the optical beam received from the VCSEL in order to improve coupling efficiency.
Regarding claim 5: The optical apparatus of claim 1, as applied above. Cheung further teaches that lenses are included to the photodetector array (see Cheung col. 2, lines 36-42 and Figs. 5B and 6). In making the modification applied to claim 1 to include metalenses above the VCSELs, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide metalenses also above the photodetectors, in order to reduce loss. Additionally, when the light is input from the RX-MMF toward the waveguide, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide lenses above the RX-MMF in order to collimate the light, thereby reducing loss, since the light is essentially following a parallel, reversed path from the RX-MMF to the photodetector as from the VCSEL to the TX-MMF, and one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to collimate and focus the light, respectively, in an appropriate manner based on the teachings of Cheung, Wei, and Vancoille (see rejection of claim 2). To make this modification, one would provide first metalenses above the photodetectors of the photodetector array and second metalenses above the RX-MMFs of the modified Cheung device.
Regarding claim 6: Modified Cheung teachesThe optical apparatus of claim 5 (as applied above), wherein: the RX-MMF is configured to output an optical beam through the second metalens;the second metalens is configured to receive the optical beam and to output a collimated optical beam towards the mirror (see Wei paragraph 0024); and the first metalens is configured to receive a reflected collimated optical beam reflected from the mirror and to output a focused optical beam into the photodetector (see Cheung col. 2, lines 36-42).
Regarding claim 7: Modified Cheung teaches the optical apparatus of claim 6, as applied above. Cheung fails to teach that the endface of the RX-MMF has an inclined surface, such that the optical beam is output from the RX-MMF at a tilted angle, in order to improve coupling efficiency. However, Wei teaches that tilting illumination light is known to increase the efficiency of an input coupler (see Wei paragraph 0022) and teaches embodiments wherein the VCSEL has an inclined surface (Figs. 5-6). Since light is also input coupled from illumination provided by the RX-MMFs following a parallel configuration, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the RX-MMF at a tilted angle, thereby providing the endface with an inclined surface, such that the optical beam is output from the RX-MMF at a tilted angle, in order to improve coupling efficiency.
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 Kirsten D Endresen whose telephone number is (703)756-1533. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday.
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.
/KIRSTEN D. ENDRESEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2874
/THOMAS A HOLLWEG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874