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 with traverse of Species I in the reply filed on 10/8/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no serious burden and causes an unnecessary additional financial burden. Examiner disagrees with this line of reasoning as the sole basis of a traversal. If the structure is materially different, a different search strategy is needed. Instead, Examiner takes Applicant’s arguments as an implication that the non-curved versus curved structure is indeed an obvious variant. Therefore, the prior restriction requirement is withdrawn.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 8-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2013/101112 to Liff et al.
As to claim 8, Liff discloses in the abstract and figures 3-5, an optical array connector comprising:
A first component (ferrule 510) configured to mechanically connect a first array of first waveguides (160 to lens array 210); and
A second component (coupler portion 310) configured to mechanically connect to a second array of second waveguides (lower lens array 322 to waveguides on substrate PIC), wherein the second component comprises a housing (500) and a microlens array (portion 230) positioned within the housing;
Wherein the first and second components are configured to:
Removably connect to one another (plug; figure 8);
Mechanically connect the first and second array and optically align the waveguides (paragraphs 29, 33 and 35).
Paragraph 37 explicitly discloses waveguide to waveguide coupling.
As to claim 1, this claim is similar to the above but recites curved surfaces that “correspond” to the waveguides. In this instance, the lens array of both ends of the coupler correspond to their respective waveguides and have curved surfaces.
As to claim 2, the interface (150) comprises a grating (paragraph 25).
As to claim 3, fibers (160; figure 1) are fixed to a substrate via coupler (110).
As to claims 4-5, the lenses of the lens array collimate light.
As to claim 6, the components are configured to direct and focus light (see light path in figure 1).
As to claims 9 and 12-13, a microlens array is disclosed in figure 1 and redirects light as claimed.
As to claim 10, the second component is fixed to a substrate of the PIC.
Claim 11 relates to language concerning the mounting of the first and second components. These are arranged as claimed or can be reversed or both comprise fiber array units.
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) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liff in view of US 2024/0019638 to Haase et al.
As to claim 7, Liff discloses the invention as claimed except for various additional surfaces with light redirection. It is noted that the coupler art comprises many different coupler types and even light pipes with multiple reflective surfaces.
Haase discloses multiple surfaces for light redirection.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to change the form factor or add additional redirection paths such as taught in Haase in the connector of Liff to change a connector form factor for optimal sizing.
Claim(s) 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liff as applied to claims 1-6 and 8 above, and further in view of US 2023/0418002 to Tseng et al.
Claims 14-20 relate to the above except for the addition of a third waveguide array. It is noted that PICs are generally not limited to single waveguide arrays as the circuits require multiple interconnections.
As to claims 15 and 18, the lenses in Liff expand or collimate a beam.
As to claim 16, the method of making the waveguides is not a positive limitation in an apparatus claim.
As to claim 17, the substrate is planar and therefore the waveguides would be planar.
As to claim 20, no angle is specifically claimed. Liff redirects light at a 90 degree angle.
Tseng discloses multiple waveguide arrays (see figures 2 and 3A-3B) to interconnect multiple components coupled on a PIC.
As to claim 19, Tseng discloses polishing the substrate or fibers in paragraph 31.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide multiple waveguide connections to interconnect components on a PIC and polish appropriate coupling faces as taught by Tseng in the connector of Liff to provide for a complete PIC package.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2015/0212281 (mated lens array connectors).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Eric K Wong whose telephone number is (571)272-2363. The examiner can normally be reached M-Tu, Th-F 8A-6P.
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 on 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.
ERIC K. WONG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2874
/Eric Wong/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874