Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 19 is indefinite because there is insufficient antecedent basis for "the optical glue". Parent claim 16 does not mention optical glue. It appears that claim 19 should be revised to depend from claim 18, which does mention optical glue. For the purpose of comparison with prior art in this action it will be assumed that claim 19 depends from claim 18.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2016/0231513 A1.
Claim 1: '513 discloses a fiber array unit (FAU) structure, comprising (see mainly figs. 13-16):
a fiber array unit (FAU) comprising a fiber holder 190 (isolated in fig. 14) that holds a plurality of optical fibers 156 ([0074]);
a passive optical component structure, comprising:
a reflective layer 164' comprising a plurality of reflectors 169 ('513 calls them lenses but they are also reflective, note e.g. [0069]) wherein the plurality of reflectors is adjacent to the plurality of optical fibers (see e.g. fig. 16); and
a lens layer 144 comprising a plurality of silicon lenses 147 (fig. 15, [0070], [0077]), wherein the plurality of silicon lenses is adjacent to the plurality of reflectors (fig. 16); and
a carrier board 130 (fig. 2) configured to support the FAU and the passive optical component structure (130 supports 144, which in turn supports 164', and 164' supports 190 by way of rails 188A/188B which engage grooves 192A/192B),
wherein the FAU 190 and the passive optical component structure (comprising 144 / 164') are adjacent to each other (fig. 16), and wherein the lens layer 144 is located between the reflective layer 164' and the carrier board 130 (figs. 16 and 2).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-10 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 base claim 1 and all applicable intervening claims. Claims 11-18 and 20 are allowed. Claim 19 would be allowable if it is amended to depend from claim 18.
As to claim 2, the applied embodiment of '513 intentionally uses bores instead of grooves to hold the fibers (note [0074]), so there is no suggestion or motivation to provide grooves in the fiber holder in the recited manner.
As to claim 3, the reflectors 169 as interpreted in the rejection are formed on a surface configured to provide total internal reflection, so there is no suggestion or motivation to embed the reflectors in a dielectric layer as recited. Claim 4 depends from claim 3.
As to claim 5, although layer 144 can be made from silicon (note [0045]) there is no apparent suggestion or motivation to further provide in layer 144 the recited pillars and gap-filling material.
As to claim 6, the applied embodiment includes a layer 166 which may be made of glass (note [0073]), but there is no apparent suggestion or motivation to provide a glass cover on a side of the reflective layer 164' opposite the lens layer 144.
As to claim 7, there is no apparent suggestion or motivation for the passive optical component structure as interpreted in the rejection to further include a passivation layer disposed on a side of the reflective layer opposite the lens layer.
As to claims 8 and 9, there is no apparent suggestion or motivation to include optical glue in the recited locations in the '513 device. Claim 10 depends from claim 9.
As to claims 11 and 16, '513 does not disclose or suggest embedding the reflectors within a dielectric layer as mentioned above. '513 further does not disclose or suggest at least the recited steps of thinning a silicon layer and etching it to define the silicon lenses, in combination with all the other recited steps. Claims 12-15 and 17-20 depend from claims 11 or 16.
Conclusion
The additional references listed on the attached 892 form are considered generally relevant to the subject matter of this application. Several of them disclose other examples of assemblies including silicon lenses.
Contact Information
Examiner: 571-272-2360
Examiner's direct supervisor: 571-272-2397
Official correspondence by fax: 571-273-8300
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Should you have questions about Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Michael Stahl/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874