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 Objections
Claim 11, 15 objected to because of the following informalities: claim 15 is a duplicate of claim 11. Duplicate claims are not proper. Appropriate correction is required.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted/amended claims 1-7, 9, 21-25 are directed to an invention that is distinct from the invention originally claimed for the reasons that follow [see further below].
Claims 10-16 are the remaining claims that were originally presented since claims 10-16 are the only claims properly added and entered in the application before the first restriction requirement {RR} Office action on the merits mailed on 11/18/25.
So, currently, two groups of claims are present in the 1/19/26 version of the claims:
Claims 1-7, 9, 21-25, which contain limitations not originally claimed in independent claims 1, 21 wherein claim 1 is an optical engine device with no holder; claim 21 is an optical engine device having a holder and laser written waveguides .
Claims 10-16, claiming subject matter as originally filed. drawn to the first end of each waveguide is closer to a bottom surface of the glass block than the respective second end of that waveguide; and a holder surrounding the glass block, wherein the holder is configured to connect to an optical fiber
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are related as combination and subcombination, respectively. Inventions in this relationship are distinct if it can be shown that (1) the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed for patentability, and (2) that the subcombination has utility by itself or in other combinations (MPEP § 806.05(c)). In the instant case, the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed because neither of independent claims 1, 21 require the first end of each waveguide is closer to a bottom surface of the glass block than the respective second end of that waveguide. The subcombination claim 10 has separate utility such as, as a non-limiting example, in a device that does not require an optical engine [as a non-limiting example, the device of claim 10 might have a photodetector without an optical engine].
The examiner has required restriction between combination and subcombination inventions. Where applicant elects a subcombination, and claims thereto are subsequently found allowable, any claim(s) depending from or otherwise requiring all the limitations of the allowable subcombination will be examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. See MPEP § 821.04(a). Applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits [on 11/18/25] for the originally presented invention of Group II, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 1-7, 9, 21-25 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
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) 10, 11, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dong et al. (US 20220155526; “Dong”) with obviousness evidence by {OEB} Zhang et al. (US 9933574; “Zhang”).
Regarding claim 10, Dong teaches device comprising: a photonic package 40/16 comprising a plurality of edge couplers (e.g., fig. 2B; the right edge of element 40 has waveguides {WGs} 46 ending at the right edge of element 40) ;a glass block 50 adjacent the photonic package 40/16 (e.g., fig. 2B), wherein the glass block 50 comprises a plurality of waveguides 60 (e.g., fig. 3A), wherein each waveguide 60 has a first end and a second end (e.g., fig. 3A, fig. 2B), wherein the first end of each waveguide is optically coupled to a respective edge coupler (e.g., fig. 2B; the edge of each of WGs 46), wherein the first end of each waveguide is closer to a bottom surface of the glass block 50 than the respective second end of that waveguide 46 (e.g., fig. 3A, fig. 2B). Furthermore, Dong teaches a fiber block (FB)/multifiber ferrule 70 for coupling to the WGs 60 of glass block 50 (e.g., fig. 3A, fig. 2B).
Dong does not explicitly state a holder surrounding the glass block 50 wherein the holder is configured to connect to an optical fiber {OF}.
However, it was well-known for a holder to surround an optical connector/block as evidenced by Zhang (e.g., Zhang fig. 1; see the end of ferrule in Zhang fig. 1 surrounding the edge of optical connector/block in Zhang fig. 1; the end of ferrule in Zhang fig. 1 surrounding the edge of optical connector/block is a “holder” and the holder is configured to connect to an optical fiber since the holder is part of a ferrule connected to optical fibers inside the ferrule). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a holder surrounding the glass block 50 wherein the holder is configured to connect to an optical fiber at least for the purpose of providing a dependable mechanical connection between the glass block 50 and the fiber block 70 in Dong fig. 2B.
Thus claim 10 is rejected under Dong with OEB Zhang (“Dong-Zhang”).
Regarding each of respective claims 11, 15 Dong-Zhang teaches the device of claim 10 (see above), wherein the first ends of the plurality of waveguides 60 are arranged in a horizontal row (e.g., fig. 3A, fig. 2B).
Thus each of respective claims 11, 15 is rejected.
Claim(s) 12, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dong-Zhang as applied to claim 10 above with further OEB Fortusini et al. (US 20190170945; “Fortusini”).
Regarding claim 12, Dong-Zhang teaches the device of claim 10 (see above).
Dong-Zhang does not explicitly state the first ends of the plurality of waveguides have a first pitch and the second ends of the plurality of waveguides have a second pitch that is greater than the first pitch.
However, it was well-known for the first ends of the plurality of waveguides have a first pitch and the second ends of the plurality of waveguides have a second pitch that is greater than the first pitch as evidenced by Fortusini (e.g., Fortusini fig. 2B; laser-written WGs are provides in a block that go from a second/OF pitch to a substrate WG 221 1st pitch that is narrower than the second pitch ). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the first ends of the plurality of waveguides have a first pitch and the second ends of the plurality of waveguides have a second pitch that is greater than the first pitch at least for the purpose of coupling WGs/fibers of different pitches.
Thus claim 12 is rejected under Dong-Zhang with OEB Fortusini (“Dong-Zhang- Fortusini”).
Regarding claim 13, Dong-Zhang-Fortusini the device of claim 12 (see above), wherein the first pitch is in the range of 10 µm to 125 µm and the second pitch is in the range of 250 µm to 500 µm.
However, it was well-known for the first pitch is in the range of 10 µm to 125 µm and the second pitch is in the range of 250 µm to 500 µm. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the first pitch is in the range of 10 µm to 125 µm and the second pitch is in the range of 250 µm to 500 µm at least for the purpose of allowing coupling between a fiber WG array pitch and a PIC/substrate WG array pitch.
Thus claim 13 is rejected under Dong-Zhang- Fortusini.
Claim(s) 14, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dong-Zhang as applied to claim 10 above with further OEB Shao et al. (US 20250044532; “Shao”).
Regarding claim 14, Dong-Zhang teaches the device of claim 10 (see above).
Dong-Zhang does not explicitly state further comprising a lens attachment on a sidewall of the glass block, wherein the lens attachment comprises a plurality of lenses, wherein each lens of the plurality of lenses is optically coupled to a respective waveguide of the plurality of waveguides.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a lens attachment on a sidewall of the glass block, wherein the lens attachment comprises a plurality of lenses, wherein each lens of the plurality of lenses is optically coupled to a respective waveguide of the plurality of waveguides as evidenced by Shao (e.g., Shao figs. 16, 21). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a lens attachment on a sidewall of the glass block, wherein the lens attachment comprises a plurality of lenses, wherein each lens of the plurality of lenses is optically coupled to a respective waveguide of the plurality of waveguides at least for the purpose of better coupling.
Thus claim 14 is rejected under Dong-Zhang with OEB Shao (“Dong-Zhang- Shao”).
Regarding claim 16, Dong-Zhang teaches the device of claim 10 (see above).
Dong-Zhang does not explicitly state the second ends of the plurality of waveguides are arranged in a first horizontal row that is a first height above a bottom surface of the glass block and a second horizontal row that is a second height above a bottom surface of the glass block that is different than the first height.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the second ends of the plurality of waveguides are arranged in a first horizontal row that is a first height above a bottom surface of the glass block and a second horizontal row that is a second height above a bottom surface of the glass block that is different than the first height as evidenced by Shao (e.g., Shao figs. 16, 21). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the second ends of the plurality of waveguides are arranged in a first horizontal row that is a first height above a bottom surface of the glass block and a second horizontal row that is a second height above a bottom surface of the glass block that is different than the first height at least for the purpose of better coupling and/or increasing coupling capacity.
Thus claim 16 is rejected under Dong-Zhang with OEB Dong-Zhang- Shao.
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
Prosecution Insights