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.
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.
Claims 1-13 are 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.
Regarding claim 1, it is unclear as to whether or not the claimed “an optical component” recited in line 3 of claim 1 refers to the same feature set forth previously in line 1 of claim 1 as “an optical component”. Furthermore, it is unclear as to whether or not the claimed “an optical connector” recited in line 6 of claim 1 refers to the same feature set forth previously in line 1 of claim 1 as “an optical connector”.
If Applicant intends these recitations to reference same features, Applicant should amend the line 3 recitation of “an optical component” and the line 6 recitation of “an optical connector” so as to read as “the optical component” and “the optical connector”, respectively. If Applicant intends these recitations to reference different features, Applicant needs to amend the claim in such a way as to distinguish between the features.
For examination purposes, Examiner interprets these recitations as referencing same features.
Regarding claims 2-13, the claims are rejected due to their dependence from claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-5, 9, 11, 12, 14-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2025/0172766 (“HUANG”).
Regarding claim 1, HUANG teaches a method for aligning an optical connector (200) with an optical component (100), the method comprising: providing the optical component comprising at least one optical port (107, 108) on a surface of the optical component, wherein the optical component comprises a first correction device (110, left) and a second correction device (110, right); aligning the optical connector with the first correction device to achieve a first positional setting of the optical connector; aligning the optical connector with the second correction device to achieve a second positional setting of the optical connector; and moving the optical connector a predefined distance while maintaining the first and second positional settings to bring the optical connector into an operative position with respect to the at least one optical port (FIG. 3A; pars. [0022], [0023]).
Regarding claim 3, HUANG teaches that the second positional setting of the optical connector is a lateral position of the optical connector (FIG. 3A; pars. [0022], [0023]).
Regarding claim 4, HUANG teaches that the predefined distance is a distance between the second correction device and the at least one optical port (FIGs. 1, 3A).
Regarding claim 5, HUANG teaches that the first correction device comprises a grating formed in the surface of the optical component (par. [0015]).
Regarding claim 9, HUANG teaches that the second correction device comprises a grating formed in the surface of the optical component (par. [0015]).
Regarding claim 11, HUANG teaches that the grating is configured to match a configuration of the at least one optical port, such that centering the optical fiber of the optical connector with respect to the second correction device corresponds to centering the optical fiber of the optical connector with respect to the at least one optical port (FIGs. 1, 3A; pars. [0021], [0022]).
Regarding claim 12, HUANG teaches that the optical connector comprises an array of optical fibers (204).
Regarding claim 14, HUANG teaches an optical component (100) comprising: at least one optical port (107, 108) configured to receive an optical signal from an optical fiber (204) of an optical connector (200); a first correction device (110, left), wherein the first correction device is configured to align the optical fiber of the optical connector to achieve a first positional setting of the optical connector (FIG. 3A; pars. [0022], [0023]); and a second correction device (110, right), wherein the second correction device is configured to align the optical fiber of the optical connector to achieve a second positional setting of the optical connector; wherein movement of the optical connector by a predetermined distance while maintaining the first and second positional settings serves to align the optical fiber of the optical connector with the at least one optical port (FIG. 3A; pars. [0022], [0023]).
Regarding claim 15, HUANG teaches that the first correction device is spaced from the second correction device (FIG. 1).
Regarding claim 16, HUANG teaches that the at least one optical port is disposed between the first correction device and the second correction device (FIGs. 1, 3A).
Regarding claim 17, HUANG teaches that the optical component comprises multiple optical ports, and wherein each optical port is associated with a first correction device and a second correction device (FIGs. 1, 3A).
Regarding claim 20, HUANG teaches that the second correction device comprises a grating formed in the surface of the optical component, wherein the grating is configured to match a configuration of the at least one optical port, such that centering the optical fiber of the optical connector with respect to the second correction device corresponds to centering the optical fiber of the optical connector with respect to the at least one optical port (FIGs. 1, 3A; par. [0015]).
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.
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HUANG in view of US 2010/0014807 (“SHIN”).
HUANG teaches the limitations of the base claim 1. HUANG does not teach that the first positional setting of the optical connector is a tilt of the optical connector. SHIN teaches a first positional setting of an optical connector that is a tilt of the optical connector (par. [0015]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to modify the method of HUANG such that the first positional setting of the optical connector is a tilt of the optical connector, as taught by SHIN. The motivation would have been to achieve three-dimensional alignment (pars. [0019]-[0022]).
Claims 6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HUANG in view of US 2011/0149365 (“CHO”).
HUANG teaches the limitations of the base claims 5 and 9. HUANG does not teach that the grating defines a grating period, wherein the grating period is based on the wavelength of a collimated light beam used to align the optical connector with the first correction device. CHO teaches a grating that defines a grating period, wherein the grating period is based on the wavelength of a collimated light beam used to align an optical connector with a correction device (par. [0011]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to modify the method of HUANG such that the grating defines a grating period, wherein the grating period is based on the wavelength of a collimated light beam used to align an optical connector with a correction device, as taught by CHO. The motivation would have been to achieve wavelength-selective coupling (par. [0019]).
Claims 7 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HUANG in view of US 10,241,269 (“JACOB”).
HUANG teaches the limitations of the base claims 5 and 14. HUANG further teaches that the first correction device comprises a grating formed in the surface of the optical component (par. [0015]). HUANG does not teach that the grating defines one of a square pattern, a sloped sawtooth pattern, or a sine wave pattern. JACOB teaches a grating defining a sloped sawtooth pattern (clms. 1, 14). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to modify the method and product of HUANG such that the grating defines a sloped sawtooth pattern, as taught by JACOB. The motivation would have been to enhance coupling and/or reflection of light into the waveguide structure (col. 2, lines 8-20).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HUANG in view of US 2019/0339515 (THAKUR”).
HUANG teaches the limitations of the base claim 5. HUANG does not teach that the grating is configured to have a larger area than an area of the at least one optical port. THAKUR teaches a grating configured to have a larger area than an area of an optical port (par. [0005]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to modify the method of HUANG such that the grating is configured to have a larger area than an area of the at least one optical port, as taught by THAKUR. The motivation would have been to allow for an expanded image from the propagating light (par. [0005]).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HUANG in view of JACOB as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of THAKUR.
HUANG in view of JACOB renders obvious the limitations of the base claim 18. HUANG does not teach that the grating is configured to have a larger area than an area of the at least one optical port. THAKUR teaches a grating configured to have a larger area than an area of an optical port (par. [0005]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to modify the method of HUANG such that the grating is configured to have a larger area than an area of the at least one optical port, as taught by THAKUR. The motivation would have been to allow for an expanded image from the propagating light (par. [0005]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 13 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection under
35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record, whether taken individually or in combination, when considered in light of the claimed subject matter as a whole as interpreted in light of the Specification as originally filed, fails to disclose or render obvious that the at least one optical port is a first optical port, the optical component further comprising a second optical port spaced from the first optical port, wherein each of the first optical port and the second optical port is associated with a first correction device and a second correction device, wherein the optical fiber of the optical connector is a first optical fiber, and wherein the optical connector further comprises a second optical fiber, wherein: aligning the optical connector with the first correction device comprises: aligning the first optical fiber with the first correction device associated with the first optical port to achieve a first positional setting of the first optical fiber, and aligning the second optical fiber with the first correction device associated with the second optical port to achieve a first positional setting of the second optical fiber; aligning the optical connector with the second correction device comprises: aligning the first optical fiber with the second correction device associated with the first optical port to achieve a second positional setting of the first optical fiber, and aligning the second optical fiber with the second correction device associated with the second optical port to achieve a second positional setting of the second optical fiber; and moving the optical connector a predefined distance while maintaining the first and second positional settings of the first and second optical fibers of the optical connector to bring the optical connector into an operative position that is optimized with respect to the first and second optical ports.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JERRY M BLEVINS whose telephone number is (571)272-8581. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday.
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.
/JERRY M BLEVINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874