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
Newly submitted claims 21-36, 38 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the elected invention originally claimed (i.e., elected group Id, containing original claims 1, 7-9, 11, 20 [independent claims 1, 20 merely have the “pigtails” limitation, so the claims are essentially original]; treated as an election without traverse since no substantive reasons were given for the 2/18/26 restriction requirement {RR} as being incorrect) for the following reasons: New independent claim 21 contains the limitation(s) “V-groove” and “oblique” found in non-elected original claims 2-3 and none of these limitations are found in original elected claims 1, 7-9, 11, 20.
Likewise, new dependent claims 22-24 also contain non-elected subject matter (NESM) from canceled claim(s) {CC} 2, 3 [simply stated “NESM CC 2,3”; use of “NESM” and “CC” may be used herein to simplify further discussion].
New dependent claim 25 contains NESM from CC 4.
New dependent claim 26 contains NESM from CC 5.
New dependent claim 27 contains NESM from CC 6.
New dependent claim 28 contains NESM from CC 12.
New dependent claim 29 contains NESM from CCs 13, 14, 16.
New dependent claim 30 contains NESM from CC 14.
New dependent claim 31 contains NESM from CC 15.
New dependent claim 32 contains NESM from CC 16.
New dependent claim 33 contains NESM from CC 17.
New dependent claim 34 contains NESM from CC 18.
New dependent claim 35 contains at least not originally-claimed subject matter {NOCSM} “third anti-reflective layer”.
New dependent claim 36 contains at least NOCSM “oxide layer”.
Applicant appears to have omitted a claim 37.
New dependent claim 38 contains at least NOCSM “third anti-reflective layer”.
The above new claims are once again restricted out under related inventions concepts.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 21-36, 38 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to non-elected inventions and/or NOCSM. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Elected original claims 1, 7-9, 11, 20 are examined on the merits infra.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 objected to because of the following informalities: there is a double-occurrence of “further comprising” on line 1. Appropriate correction is required.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1, 7, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Freedman et al. (US 20220276452; “Freedman”).
Regarding claim 1, Freedman teaches an optical coupler comprising: an optical fiber housing 165 (e.g., fig. 1A), the housing 165 configured to accept one or more optical fibers 10 and the housing mechanically coupled to a backside of an integrated circuit chip 100 (e.g., fig. 1A); a grating coupler 150 (e.g., fig. 1A), the grating coupler optically coupled to an output of the one or more optical fibers 10 of the optical fiber housing 165 (e.g., fig. 1A); and a waveguide 115, the waveguide 115 optically coupled to an output of the grating 150 coupler (e.g., fig. 1A; ¶s 0031, 0032, 0037).
Thus claim 1 is met.
Regarding claim 20, Freedman teaches a method of transmitting an optical signal (e.g., fig. 1A; ¶s 0031, 0032, 0037), comprising: transmitting an optical signal to an optical coupler 150 via a first optical fiber 10, the optical coupler comprising: an optical fiber housing 165 (e.g., fig. 1A), the housing configured to accept one or more optical fibers (e.g., fig. 1A), at least one of the optical fibers corresponding to the first optical fiber (e.g., fig. 1A; ¶s 0031, 0032, 0037), and the housing 165 mechanically coupled to a backside of an integrated circuit chip (e.g., fig. 1A; ¶s 0031, 0032, 0037); a grating coupler 150, the grating coupler optically coupled to an output of the one or more optical fibers 10 of the optical fiber housing 165 (e.g., fig. 1A); and a waveguide 115, the waveguide optically coupled to an output of the grating coupler (e.g., fig. 1A; ¶s 0031, 0032, 0037); and receiving the optical signal via the waveguide (e.g., fig. 1A; ¶s 0031, 0032, 0037).
Thus claim 20 is met.
Regarding claim 7, Freedman teaches the optical coupler of claim 1 (see above), further comprising an anti-reflective layer 155 (e.g., fig. 1A; ¶ 0037), wherein the anti-reflective layer is substantially opposite the grating coupler from the optical fiber housing (e.g., fig. 1A; ¶s 0031, 0032, 0037).
Thus claim 7 is met.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 9, 11 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, either alone or in combination, does not disclose or render obvious the anti-reflective layer comprises one or more distributed Bragg reflector (DBR) mirrors and/or one or more metamaterial structures or layer in combination with the rest of claim 8.
It is noted that claim 8 is allowable because the unique combination of each and every specific element stated in the claim.
The prior art, either alone or in combination, does not disclose or render obvious metamaterial structures, wherein the metamaterial structures are configured to reflect transmission modes of the grating coupler in combination with the rest of claim 9.
It is noted that claim 9 is allowable because the unique combination of each and every specific element stated in the claim.
The prior art, either alone or in combination, does not disclose or render obvious a bottom anti- reflective layer, wherein the bottom anti-reflective layer is substantially parallel to a longitudinal plane of the grating coupler and wherein the optical fiber housing passes through the bottom anti-reflective layer in combination with the rest of claim 11.
It is noted that claim 11 is allowable because the unique combination of each and every specific element stated in the claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mr. Michael Mooney whose telephone number is 571-272-2422. The examiner can normally be reached during weekdays, M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Uyen-Chau Le can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Center. Should you have questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). For checking the filing status of an application, please refer to <https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/checking-application-status/check-filing-status-your-patent-application>.
/MICHAEL P MOONEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights