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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06 April, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on 06 April, 2026 has been fully considered and entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06 April, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the mapping of “receiving side surface” and “transmitting side surface”: Applicant’s arguments with respect to the previous mapping of “receiving side surface” and “transmitting side surface” have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument, except for the following point raised by Applicant, which Examiner considers to be unpersuasive. Applicant argues that there is a fundamental structural difference between Pezeshki and the claimed invention since light enters and exits from the same side of the glass coupler, so no modification of Pezeshki can overcome the difference because the transmitting and receiving chips are coplanar. As described in the following prior art rejections, Pezeshki provides an alternative embodiment for coupling light on two different surfaces. One of ordinary skill in the art would be fully capable of making such a modification in view of the different embodiments described by Pezeshki. Applicant argues that these embodiments are completely different and cannot be combined. Examiner disagrees. Paragraph 0048 of Pezeshki describes both embodiments in such a manner that would suggest the modification to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding the prior art mapping of “the intermediate waveguide parts of at least two coupling waveguides of the plurality of coupling waveguides lying in a light coupling connection with each other enabling coupling of light signals between the at least two coupling waveguides”: Applicant’s arguments suggest that Pezeshki does not read on this claim limitation because in the splitter, there is one input that is divided into two outputs. Examiner does not find this argument persuasive because Examiner’s interpretation appears to be consistent with Applicant’s disclosure. In Fig. 6 of the present disclosure, described in connection with the claim limitation in paragraphs 0200-0205, there appear to be 4 “input waveguide parts”, 1 “intermediate waveguide part”, and 4 “output waveguide parts”. In Pezeshki, the splitter includes likewise includes joined “input waveguide parts” and “intermediate waveguide parts”, while the “output waveguide parts” are separated. This appears to be a reasonable interpretation in line with the Applicant’s claim language read in light of the disclosure.
Regarding the semiconductor laser: Applicant argues that claim 1 requires that the first optical component comprises a semiconductor laser.
While claim 1 does recite that the first optical component comprises a semiconductor laser, as pointed out in the rejection, this preamble recitation of a component external to the optical coupling element does not structurally limit the optical coupling element.
Regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b): Applicant argues that the limitation “each of the plurality of coupling waveguides comprising an input waveguide part, an intermediate waveguide part, and an output waveguide part, the intermediate waveguide parts of at least two coupling waveguides of the plurality of coupling waveguides lying in a light coupling connection with each other enabling coupling of light signals between the at least two coupling waveguides of the plurality of coupling waveguides” would be clear to one of ordinary skill in the art, since one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the “intermediate waveguide part” is the part of each waveguide between the respective “input waveguide part” and “output waveguide part”, and that the recitation “enabling coupling of light signals between the at least two coupling waveguides of the plurality of coupling waveguides” makes clear what is structurally required by “lying in a light coupling connection with each other”.
Examiner is not persuaded by this argument because it fails to address the problems with the claim language that make the claim indefinite, namely that two waveguides being joined together into a joint waveguide at their “intermediate waveguide part” is inconsistent with each of the plurality of waveguides being described as separate waveguides having an input waveguide part, an intermediate waveguide part, and an output waveguide part. In Fig. 6, for example, there appear to be 4 input waveguide parts, 1 intermediate waveguide part, and 4 output waveguide parts. Furthermore, due to the joining of the waveguides in the intermediate part, it is not even clear that the input waveguide parts and the output waveguide parts can be identified as parts of the same 4 waveguides. The language of the claim therefore does not reflect the structure of the device, but this comes back to the fact that it is unclear what is meant by “lying in a light coupling connection”. Therefore, the rejection is maintained and further clarified below.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-10, 12-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 13: The claim limitation “each of the plurality of coupling waveguides comprising an input waveguide part, an intermediate waveguide part, and an output waveguide part, the intermediate waveguide parts of at least two coupling waveguides of the plurality of coupling waveguides lying in a light coupling connection with each other enabling coupling of light signals between the at least two coupling waveguides of the plurality of coupling waveguides” is unclear. What is meant by “lying in a light coupling connection with each other”? Would this include a plurality of waveguides that are coupled to each other at a location external to the glass coupler body? In this case, one could consider that the entirety of the individual waveguides are lying in a light coupling connection with the other waveguides, including the intermediate parts, enabling coupling of light signals between the at least two coupling waveguides. Because “lying in a light coupling connection with each other” is unclear, Examiner looked to the specification. Figure 6 is described as having this feature. In Fig. 6, there appear to be 4 input waveguide parts, 1 intermediate waveguide part, and 4 output waveguide parts. Furthermore, due to the joining of the waveguides in the intermediate part, it is not even clear that the input waveguide parts and the output waveguide parts can be identified as parts of the same 4 waveguides. The language of the claim therefore does not reflect the structure of the device, but this comes back to the fact that it is unclear what is meant by “lying in a light coupling connection”.
Also regarding claims 1 and 13: “the converging member” lacks proper antecedent basis. For the purpose of examination, it is interpreted as “the first converging member”.
Also regarding claims 1 and 13: “the output facet” lacks proper antecedent basis, since the claim defines a plurality of output facets. For the purpose of examination “an output facet” is interpreted as “a first output facet” and “the output facet” is interpreted as “the first output facet”.
Also regarding claim 13: “the coupling waveguide” lacks proper antecedent basis. For the purpose of examination, it is interpreted as “the first coupling waveguide”.
Regarding claims 2, 4-10, 12, 14-16, and 18-20: Dependent claims 2, 4-10, 12, 14-16, and 18-20 inherently contain all of the deficiencies of any base and/or intervening claim from which they depend.
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, 7-9, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pezeshki et al. (US 2020/0411587; hereinafter Pezeshki) in view of Kato et al. (US 2002/0197010; hereinafter Kato).
Regarding claim 1: Pezeshki disclosesAn optical coupling element (Fig. 2, glass substrate) configured to be positioned between and optically couple a first optical component, comprising a semiconductor laser, configured to transmit a light beam, and a second optical component configured to receive light of the light beam (the glass substrate is configured to be positioned between and optically couple a first optical component and a second optical component; see note below regarding preamble recitation and scope of “optical coupling element”), the optical coupling element comprising a glass coupler body (Fig. 2, glass substrate has a glass coupler body).
Pezeshki further disclosesa first coupling waveguide (Fig. 2, any of SiO2 waveguides) of a plurality of coupling waveguides (Fig. 2 shows a plurality of coupling waveguides), the first coupling waveguide extending within the glass coupler body between a converging member and a first output facet (Fig. 2, the SiO2 waveguides extend within the glass coupler body between a converging member and an output facet) of a plurality of output facets on a transmitting side surface (Fig. 2, surface of glass body which light emerges from is considered a transmitting side surface), and being configured to transmit light of the light beam from the converging member to the output facet (Fig. 2, the SiO2 waveguides are configured to transmit light of the light beam from the converging member to the output facet); whereinthe glass coupler body comprises an array of the plurality of the plurality of coupling waveguides between a plurality of converging members and the plurality of output facets on the transmitting side surface (Fig. 2 shows this), each of the plurality of coupling waveguides comprising an input waveguide part, an intermediate waveguide part, and an output waveguide part (the SiO2 waveguides inherently have these features), the intermediate waveguide parts of at least two coupling waveguides of the plurality of coupling waveguides lying in a light coupling connection with each other enabling coupling of light signals between at least two coupling waveguides of the plurality of coupling waveguides (see optical splitter of Fig. 2).
The embodiment of Pezeshki Figure 2 differs from the claimed invention in that it fails to disclose a light beam entering the glass coupler body via a receiving side surface opposite the transmitting side surface, since the glass coupler of Pezeshki Figure 2 couples light to a component on the same side surface from which it receives input light. However, in another embodiment (Fig. 3), Pezeshki shows a device wherein a light beam enters the glass coupler body via a receiving side surface opposite the transmitting side surface. Additionally, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the glass coupler of Pezeshki such that a light beam enters the glass coupler body via a receiving side surface opposite the transmitting side surface, in circumstances where it is desirable to couple a first optical component to a second optical component via opposite side surfaces of the glass coupler. Such a modification would be an obvious rearrangement of parts based on the variations taught by Pezeshki.
While Pezeshki does teach a plurality of converging members including a first converging member configured to reduce divergence of light of the light beam entering the glass coupler body via the receiving side surface (Fig. 6, microlens assembly 621; see paragraph 0055), Pezeshki fails to teach that the converging members are formed integrally with the glass coupler body, wherein the first converging member forms a local extension outward of the receiving side surface. However, Kato, also related to optically coupling arrangements including a converging member configured to reduce the divergence of light being directed into an optical waveguide (see Figs. 1a and 1b and abstract), teaches that it is desirable to form the lens integrally with the waveguide, i.e. as a local extension outward of the receiving side surface, in order to prevent the lenses from becoming misaligned with the waveguide (see paragraphs 0017-0020). In order to prevent misalignment between the converging members and the waveguides, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to form the plurality of converging members as local extensions outward of the receiving side surface of the glass coupler body in the modified Pezeshki device, based on the teachings of Kato. In the modified device, the glass coupler body would necessarily comprise an array of the plurality of converging members and the plurality of coupling waveguides between the plurality of converging members and the plurality of output facets on the transmitting side surface.
Regarding the limitation “configured to be positioned between and optically couple a first optical component, comprising a semiconductor laser, configured to transmit a light beam, and a second optical component configured to receive light of the light beam”: The claim is directed to an optical coupling element. The first optical component and the second optical component are outside of the scope of the claim. Therefore, as presently claimed, the optical component is not limited by the recitation that the first optical component is a semiconductor laser. Furthermore, the semiconductor laser is recited only in the preamble of the claim. The preamble is denied the effect of a limitation where the claim is drawn to a structure and the portion of the claim following the preamble is a self-contained description of the structure not depending for completeness upon the introductory clause. Kropa v. Robie, 88 USPQ 478 (CCPA 1951).
Regarding claim 2: Modified Pezeshki teachesThe optical coupling element as defined in claim 1 (as applied above), wherein each converging member of the plurality of converging members comprises a lens (Fig. 6, the microlenses of the microlens assembly).
Regarding claim 5: Modified Pezeshki teaches the optical coupling element as defined in claim 1, as applied above. In another embodiment (see Fig. 3), Pezeshki teaches coupling waveguides having a curved section (see Fig. 3). The curved sections of the coupling waveguides allow light to be directed along paths including turns. In order to direct light along paths including turns, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the Pezeshki device (of Fig. 2) by including a curved section in the coupling waveguides based on the teachings of Pezeshki.
Regarding claim 7: Modified Pezeshki teachesThe optical coupling element as defined in claim 1 (as applied above), wherein each coupling waveguide of the plurality of coupling waveguides is configured to have a straight waveguide section having a substantially constant cross-section (Fig. 2 shows this).
Regarding claim 8: Modified Pezeshki teachesThe optical coupling element as defined in claim 1 (as applied above), wherein the glass coupler body has a cavity therein (see Fig. 6, the ends of the waveguides with the etched mirrors form cavities; in Fig. 2, the mirror facet furthest toward the bottom of the perspective view image, on the right side, labeled 233 and 217, corresponds to one of these cavities) dividing the coupling waveguides into a first waveguide part (either of the two waveguides that extend farther right than this etched mirror can be divided into a first waveguide part between the cavity and a converging member, corresponding to the converging member that converges light entering the respective waveguide, and a second waveguide part between the cavity and the transmitting face) dividing each coupling waveguide of the plurality of coupling waveguides into a first waveguide part between the cavity and each converging member of the plurality of converging members, and a second waveguide part between the cavity and the transmitting face.
Regarding claim 9: Modified Pezeshki teaches the optical coupling element as defined in claim 8 (as applied above), comprising an intermediate optical component positioned in the cavity (the mirror 233 is an intermediate optical component positioned in the cavity).
Regarding claim 12: Modified Pezeshki teachesThe optical coupling element as defined in claim 1 (as applied above), wherein the intermediate waveguide parts of at least two coupling waveguides of the plurality of coupling waveguides form a joint waveguide (see Fig. 2, optical splitter includes the intermediate waveguide parts of at least two coupling waveguides forming a joint waveguide).
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pezeshki et al. (US 2020/0411587; hereinafter Pezeshki) in view of Kato et al. (US 2002/0197010; hereinafter Kato) and further in view of Brusberg (US 2018/0217326; hereinafter Brusberg).
Regarding claim 4: Modified Pezeshki teaches the optical coupling element as defined in claim 1, as applied above. Pezeshki fails to teach that each coupling waveguide of the plurality of coupling waveguides is configured to narrow towards each output facet of the plurality of output facets. However, Brusberg, also related to glass couplers including waveguides (see abstract), teaches that a glass coupler including a waveguide assembly can include tapers (see paragraph 0054). Since waveguide tapers are known means for changing the mode size of light propagating through a waveguide, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the Pezeshki device so that each coupling waveguide of the plurality of coupling waveguides is configured to narrow/taper towards the output facets in applications where it is desirable to output a beam of a smaller size than an input beam.
Regarding claim 6: Modified Pezeshki teaches the optical coupling element as defined in claim 1, as applied above. Pezeshki further teaches, in another embodiment, that the coupling waveguides can include curved sections, in order to direct light along paths including turns (see Fig. 3). In the example of Fig. 3, particularly the perspective view, the waveguides are shown to be continuously curved; therefore any or the entirety of the coupling waveguides can be considered a curved section. Pezeshki fails to teach that each coupling waveguide of the plurality of coupling waveguides is configured to narrow towards each output facet of the plurality of output facets. However, Brusberg, also related to glass couplers including waveguides (see abstract), teaches that a glass coupler including a waveguide assembly can include tapers (see paragraph 0054). Since waveguide tapers are known means for changing the mode size of light propagating through a waveguide, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the Pezeshki device so that each coupling waveguide of the plurality of coupling waveguides is configured to narrow/taper towards the output facets in applications where it is desirable to output a beam of a smaller size than an input beam.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kirsten D Endresen whose telephone number is (703)756-1533. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday.
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.
/KIRSTEN D. ENDRESEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2874
/THOMAS A HOLLWEG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights