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 .
Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of the amendment and remarks filed June 8, 2026.
Terminal Disclaimer
Terminal disclaimer filed June 8, 2026 is disapproved, see decision scanned 7/10/26, reason reproduced below:
Improper language: 1. For application filed on/after 9/16/2012, 37 CFR 1.321 specifies that the applicant can disclaim: Please re the language referring to the applicant as the "assignee" and replace it with "applicant". Note: Please use or refer to approved form PTO/AIA /26. 2. The TD does not clearly mention the "prior patent" that is being disclaimed. Please make corrections as suggested above, and also resubmit the TD. (No new fee required).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does teach the amended limitations of claims 3 and 13, incorporated into independent claims 1 and 11 respectively. Although examiner had initially indicated these claims as objected to as being allowable, upon further consideration, the secondary reference Rinne does teach the limitation of “wherein the metal buttress structure has a coefficient of thermal expansion that is less than 20 ppm/°C” when it is taught that “once a desired thickness of metal has been plated, the apparatus 49 can be removed from the optical fiber and substrate, and the plated metal layer can bond the optical fiber to the substrate in the desired orientation. More particularly, a plated metal layer such as that illustrated in FIG. 2B can bond the fiber and substrate. Because the optical fiber is now bonded with the plated metal layer, the fiber and/or substrate can be released from any equipment used for positioning during plating operations. The plated metal can be any metal suitable for plating such as, for example, nickel, lead, tin, silver, gold, and/or alloys thereof. The optical fiber can thus be bonded to a substrate using a metal layer while maintaining temperatures of the optical fiber and substrate below a melting temperature of the metal (see col 4, lines 52-65). Examiner apologizes for any inconvenience and sets forth a second action non-final rejection below.
Double Patenting
Claim 19 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,746,937 to Butler et al. (hereinafter “Butler”) in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,863,209 to Rinne et al. (from hereinafter “Rinne”).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope of the instant claim is encompassed within the patented claims, with an additional teaching. For example, both claim 19 of the instant application and claim 1 of the Butler patent recite the limitations of “A method of bonding an optical element to a substrate, the method comprising: disposing a film layer on a surface of the substrate; disposing the optical element on a surface of the film layer; directing a laser beam into the optical element; melting, using the laser beam that was directed into the optical element, a material of the substrate to create a bond area between the optical element and the surface of the substrate, wherein the film layer is capable of absorbing a wavelength of the laser beam to melt at least one of the material of the substrate and the film layer at the bond area, and the bond area comprises laser-melted material of the substrate that bonds the optical element to at least one of the substrate and the film layer.”
The Butler reference fails to teach the step of electroplating a metal buttress structure adjacent to the optical element.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Rinne teaches methods of bonding components wherein FIG. 1 illustrates an optical fiber 31 that is bonded to a substrate 33 using a layer 35 of a plated metal. As shown, the fiber 31 includes a core 37 and cladding 39. The optical fiber 31 can also include a metallized surface 41, and the substrate can include a metallized surface 43 to facilitate plating thereon. The optical fiber 31 with the metallized surface 41 can thus be positioned relative to the substrate 33 to obtain a desired orientation therebetween, and the optical fiber can be bonded to the substrate in the desired orientation by plating the metal layer 35 thereon while maintaining the optical fiber 31 in the desired orientation relative to the substrate. By plating the metal to bond the optical fiber to the substrate, bonding can be effected without significantly increasing the temperature of the substrate or optical fiber. More particularly, the metal layer 35 can be plated using electroplating, electroless plating, electrophoretic plating, and/or any other plating techniques known to those having skill in the art. Moreover, the plating solution can be applied using selective plating of the substrate 33 and fiber 31 in a tank of the plating solution; using localized plating such as with a brush, a sponge, a pad, an open cell foam; and/or using any other application techniques known to those having skill in the art. Hence, Rinne teaches a metal buttress structure, metal layer 35, adjacent to the optical element (see Figure 1, col 2, lines 43-65).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings of Rinne along with Butler in order to arrive at the instant invention claimed because the scope of the claims is taught by the combination and providing a metal buttress is favorable to impart structure to the fiber component so that it is more secure.
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
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 1-2, 5, 8, 10-12, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 11,422,310 to Logunov et al. (from hereinafter “Logunov”) in view of US Patent No. 6,863,209 to Rinne et al. (from hereinafter “Rinne”).
Regarding claims 1-2 and 11-12 Logunov teaches an assembly comprising: a substrate (substrate 100) comprising a surface (planar first surface 102); an optical element (optical fibers 110) bonded (laser bonded) to the surface of the substrate; a bond area (laser bond area 112) between the optical element and the surface of the substrate, wherein the bond area comprises laser-melted material of the substrate that bonds the optical element to the substrate. Additionally regarding claim 11, Logunov teaches an optical connector 400 with a housing 402 and a film layer 108 (see Figures 1-3, col 6 lines 3-25, 59-65, col 7, lines 25-45, col 8, lines 8-34).
Logunov fails to specifically teach a metal buttress structure adjacent to the bond area and the optical element wherein the metal buttress structure has a coefficient of thermal expansion that is less than 20 ppm/°C (claims 1 and 11) and further that the metal buttress structure comprises an electroplated layer (claims 2 and 12).
However, in the same field of endeavor, Rinne teaches methods of bonding components wherein FIG. 1 illustrates an optical fiber 31 that is bonded to a substrate 33 using a layer 35 of a plated metal. As shown, the fiber 31 includes a core 37 and cladding 39. The optical fiber 31 can also include a metallized surface 41, and the substrate can include a metallized surface 43 to facilitate plating thereon. The optical fiber 31 with the metallized surface 41 can thus be positioned relative to the substrate 33 to obtain a desired orientation therebetween, and the optical fiber can be bonded to the substrate in the desired orientation by plating the metal layer 35 thereon while maintaining the optical fiber 31 in the desired orientation relative to the substrate. By plating the metal to bond the optical fiber to the substrate, bonding can be effected without significantly increasing the temperature of the substrate or optical fiber. More particularly, the metal layer 35 can be plated using electroplating, electroless plating, electrophoretic plating, and/or any other plating techniques known to those having skill in the art. Moreover, the plating solution can be applied using selective plating of the substrate 33 and fiber 31 in a tank of the plating solution; using localized plating such as with a brush, a sponge, a pad, an open cell foam; and/or using any other application techniques known to those having skill in the art. Hence, Rinne teaches a metal buttress structure, metal layer 35, adjacent to the optical element that is electroplated (see Figure 1, col 2, lines 43-65). Further, Rinne teaches that once a desired thickness of metal has been plated, the apparatus 49 can be removed from the optical fiber and substrate, and the plated metal layer can bond the optical fiber to the substrate in the desired orientation. More particularly, a plated metal layer such as that illustrated in FIG. 2B can bond the fiber and substrate. Because the optical fiber is now bonded with the plated metal layer, the fiber and/or substrate can be released from any equipment used for positioning during plating operations. The plated metal can be any metal suitable for plating such as, for example, nickel, lead, tin, silver, gold, and/or alloys thereof. The optical fiber can thus be bonded to a substrate using a metal layer while maintaining temperatures of the optical fiber and substrate below a melting temperature of the metal (see col 4, lines 52-65).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize and incorporate the teachings of Rinne along with the teachings of Logunov to ensure a cohesive object and providing a metal buttress with a well-known CTE is favorable to impart structure to the fiber component so that it is more secure and able to be used efficiently and effectively.
Regarding claim 5, Logunov teaches that the optical element comprises an optical fiber (see Fig. 1, col 6 line 4).
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Logunov fails to specifically disclose wherein the metal buttress structure and the bond area extend along at least a portion of a length of the optical fibers.
Rinne teaches that the optical fiber 31 with the metallized surface 41 can thus be positioned relative to the substrate 33 to obtain a desired orientation therebetween, and the optical fiber can be bonded to the substrate in the desired orientation by plating the metal layer 35 thereon while maintaining the optical fiber 31 in the desired orientation relative to the substrate. By plating the metal to bond the optical fiber to the substrate, bonding can be effected without significantly increasing the temperature of the substrate or optical fiber (see Figure 1, col 2 lines 48-56). Hence, Rinne teaches that the metal layer is positioned along at least a portion of the fiber and bond area.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the metal buttress along the length of the optical fibers so that there is ample coverage and support for the optical fiber.
Regarding claim 10, although Logunov teaches that additional elements can be placed in the laser bond area (see claim 1, col 2, lines 22-27), and not specifically placing additional elements on the substrate, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have one or more additional optical elements bonded to the surface of the substrate in the event one of the optical fibers or elements malfunctions and there can be additional support with an additional element.
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 11,422,310 to Logunov et al. (from hereinafter “Logunov”) in view of US Patent No. 6,863,209 to Rinne et al. (from hereinafter “Rinne”), and further in view of Chen et al. (USPGPUB No. 2024/0142722, from hereinafter “Chen”).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Logunov as modified by Rinne fails to specifically teach wherein the metal buttress structure is fabricated from Invar.
Chen teaches that in one embodiment, the first array of mirrors and the first array of alignment features are simultaneously defined on the first base by stamping a first body of metal blank and the second array of mirrors and the second array of alignment features are simultaneously defined on the second base by stamping a second body of metal blank. By high-precision stamping to integrally/simultaneously form the passive alignment features and/or the micro optical bench (MOB) on the foundation and the optical connector, the components can be produced economically in high or small volumes, while improving tolerance, manufacturability, ease of use, functionality and reliability. The foundation and/or optical bench components should be made of stampable materials like ductile metals such as Kovar, Invar, stainless steel, aluminum. Preferably, the optical bench and foundation should both have similar coefficients of thermal expansion (CTEs) that are nearly equal to the PIC, so that misalignment does not occur during temperature cycles and stress/strains are not generated (see Figure 1A, paragraphs 25, 66, 78).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize Invar for the metal buttress since the CTE of Invar is lower (about 1.2 ppm/degrees C) and that can be favorable in different, varied temperatures and can help with the reliability of the metal.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 10,746,937 to Butler et al. (hereinafter “Butler”) in view of US Patent No. 6,863,209 to Rinne et al. (from hereinafter “Rinne”).
Butler teaches a method of bonding an optical element to a substrate, the method comprising: disposing a film layer on a surface of the substrate; disposing the optical element on a surface of the film layer; directing a laser beam into the optical element; melting, using the laser beam that was directed into the optical element, a material of the substrate to create a bond area between the optical element and the surface of the substrate, wherein the film layer is capable of absorbing a wavelength of the laser beam to melt at least one of the material of the substrate and the film layer at the bond area, and the bond area comprises laser-melted material of the substrate that bonds the optical element to at least one of the substrate and the film layer” (see claim 1 of Butler).
The Butler reference fails to teach the step of electroplating a metal buttress structure adjacent to the optical element.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Rinne teaches methods of bonding components wherein FIG. 1 illustrates an optical fiber 31 that is bonded to a substrate 33 using a layer 35 of a plated metal. As shown, the fiber 31 includes a core 37 and cladding 39. The optical fiber 31 can also include a metallized surface 41, and the substrate can include a metallized surface 43 to facilitate plating thereon. The optical fiber 31 with the metallized surface 41 can thus be positioned relative to the substrate 33 to obtain a desired orientation therebetween, and the optical fiber can be bonded to the substrate in the desired orientation by plating the metal layer 35 thereon while maintaining the optical fiber 31 in the desired orientation relative to the substrate. By plating the metal to bond the optical fiber to the substrate, bonding can be effected without significantly increasing the temperature of the substrate or optical fiber. More particularly, the metal layer 35 can be plated using electroplating, electroless plating, electrophoretic plating, and/or any other plating techniques known to those having skill in the art. Moreover, the plating solution can be applied using selective plating of the substrate 33 and fiber 31 in a tank of the plating solution; using localized plating such as with a brush, a sponge, a pad, an open cell foam; and/or using any other application techniques known to those having skill in the art. Hence, Rinne teaches a metal buttress structure, metal layer 35, adjacent to the optical element (see Figure 1, col 2, lines 43-65).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings of Rinne along with Butler in order to arrive at the instant invention claimed to ensure a cohesive object and providing a metal buttress is favorable to impart structure to the fiber component so that it is more secure and able to be used efficiently and effectively.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-7, 9, 15-17, and 20 are 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. The prior art of record fails to specifically teach the particular geometric limitations of the metal buttress.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LISA M CAPUTO whose telephone number is (571)272-2388. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5 EST.
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, Uyen-Chau Le can be reached at 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 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.
/LISA M CAPUTO/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights