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 .
Detailed Action
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II (claims 15-19) and species A (fig. 5) in response/amendment is acknowledged. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
The prior art documents submitted by Applicant(s) in the information Disclosure Statement(s) have all been considered and made of record (note the attached copy of form(s) PTO-1449).
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
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 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.
Claims 15-17, 21-26 and 28 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tanazawa, US 20150010272 A1
Regarding claim 15, Tanazawa teaches a method of forming a fiber array unit (see figs. 1-11 and summary), the method comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
362
469
media_image1.png
Greyscale
forming a recess 370 in a base layer 300 (shown in at least fig. 1), wherein the recess comprises a recess bottom (the incidence surface) and a recess sidewall adjoining the recess bottom (clearly shown in at least fig. 1);
forming a mirror comprising a reflective layer on the recess bottom (see parag. 0088);
Forming the base layer to an inner base layer and the outer base layer (see at least fig. 1), wherein the recess is located at an interface between the outer base layer and the inner base layer (see fig. 1); and attaching the base to a support structure 210 such that the interface is substantially perpendicular to the support structure (shown in at least fig. 1).
However, Tanazawa does not teach that the above inner and outer layer of the base layer being attached and that the side wall is also coated with the reflective layer. Nonetheless, the outer base layer whether separately being attached to the inner bale layer or mere monolithically formed would have the same/similar effect in transmission of optical beam between the optical fiber and a receiver in the support/substrate structure and that the side wall does not have a reflective function as the bottom layer is the main reflection layer of the optical beam as claimed. And that from the specification the outer base layer is not germane to the invention and Tanazawa’s fiber unit would function as well as that of the claimed invention. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Tanazawa base layer to a separate inner base and outer base layer since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
The statements advanced in rejection of claim 1, above, as to the applicability and disclosure of Tanazawa and the motivation are incorporated herein in rejection of the following claims as follows:
16. (Original) The method of claim 15, wherein the forming of the recess comprises forming the recess sidewall to include a tapered recess sidewall including a taper angle in a range from 400 to 500 (clearly shown in at least fig. 1).
17. (Original) The method of claim 15, wherein the forming of the recess comprises forming the recess in a first side surface of the inner base layer, wherein the inner base layer comprises a second side surface opposite the first side surface of the inner base layer and substantially parallel with the first side surface of the inner base layer (clearly shown in at least fig. 1, with the parallel sidewalls adjacent to the reflective surface).
The statements advanced in rejection of claim 1, above, as to the applicability and disclosure of Tanazawa and the motivation are incorporated herein in rejection of the claims 21- as follows:
Regarding claim 21, Tanazawa teaches method of forming an optical component (see figs. 1-11 and summary), the method comprising:
forming a recess 370 in an inner base layer; forming a reflective layer on a bottom surface of the recess 370 (see figs. 1-11 and summary); attaching the inner base layer to an outer base layer to form a base 300; and attaching the base to a support structure 210 such that the bottom surface of the recess is substantially perpendicular to the support structure (shown in at least fig. 1).
However, Tanazawa does not teach that the above inner and outer layer of the base layer being attached and that the side wall is also coated with the reflective layer. Nonetheless, the outer base layer whether separately being attached to the inner bale layer or mere monolithically formed would have the same/similar effect in transmission of optical beam between the optical fiber and a receiver in the support/substrate structure and that the side wall does not have a reflective function as the bottom layer is the main reflection layer of the optical beam as claimed. And that from the specification the outer base layer is not germane to the invention and Tanazawa’s fiber unit would function as well as that of the claimed invention. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Tanazawa base layer to a separate inner base and outer base layer since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
.
22. (New) The method of claim 21, wherein the recess further comprises a tapered sidewall adjoining the bottom surface, and the forming of the reflective layer comprises forming the reflective layer on the tapered sidewall (see parag. 0088).
23. (New) The method of claim 22, wherein the tapered sidewall comprises a taper angle in a range from about 400 to 500 (clearly shown in at least fig. 1).
24. (New) The method of claim 21, wherein the attaching of the inner base layer to the outer base layer is performed such that the recess is located at an interface between the outer base layer and the inner base layer (clearly shown in at least fig. 1).
25. (New) The method of claim 21, further comprising: forming a fill material in the recess on the reflective coating (see parag. 0088). .
26. (New) The method of claim 21, further comprising: positioning an optical fiber on the support structure such that an end face of the optical fiber faces a side surface of the inner base layer (clearly shown in at least fig. 1).
28. (New) The method of claim 26, wherein the positioning the optical fiber comprises aligning a fiber core of the optical fiber with the reflective layer (clearly shown in at least fig. 1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 18-19 and 27 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.
Claims 29-35 are allowed because the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious forming a dielectric fill material within the tapered recesses; bonding the inner base layer to a transparent outer base layer to define a composite base; dicing the composite base to form individual base units in combination with the rest of the limitations of the base claim.
…
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
Prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. In accordance with MPEP 707.05 the following references are pertinent in rejection of this application since they provide substantially the same information disclosure as this patent does. These references are:
CN 102313938 A
CN 109407225 A
JP 2009104096 A
US 10088639 B2
US 10345542 B2
US 11624879 B2
US 12216314 B2
US 20040086231 A1
US 20040129935 A1
US 20130108224 A1
US 20130330034 A1
US 20150010272 A1
US 20150030285 A1
US 20150071593 A1
US 20150153521 A1
US 20150293317 A1
US 20150331212 A1
US 20160011385 A1
US 20190000307 A1
US 20220006423 A1
US 20230408768 A1
US 20250306300 A1
US 5381231 A
US 5555333 A
US 9435968 B1
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAVEH C KIANNI whose telephone number is (571)272-2417. The examiner can normally be reached on 9-19.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Thomas Hollweg can be reached on571-270-1739. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KAVEH C KIANNI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874