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.
Election/Restrictions
Claim 4 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 25 February, 2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: “associated” should be “associate”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-3 and 5-15 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 claim 1: Claim 1 recites the limitation "the first spatial distribution of the second optical beam profile" in line 1 of page 49. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood to refer to a first spatial distribution of the second optical beam profile.
Also regarding claim 1: Claim 1 recites the limitation “the second spatial distribution of the second optical beam profile” in line 10 of page 49. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood to refer to a second spatial distribution of the second optical beam profile, wherein the first spatial distribution of the second optical beam profile and the second spatial distribution of the second optical beam profile are arranged orthogonal with respect to each other, corresponding to the definitions of first and second spatial distributions of the first optical beam profile recited in the claim.
Regarding claims 1, 6, and 7: The limitation “the optical radiation”, as it appears in each of these claims, has insufficient antecedent basis. While preceded by a first instance of “optical radiation”, the claim describes two possible light paths, light being input at the first optical interface and output from the second optical interface or light being input at the second optical interface and output from the first optical interface. These are understood to be two different light paths, i.e. different optical radiation. For the purpose of examination, this is interpreted as “optical radiation”.
Also regarding claim 1: The limitation (emphasis added) “the reflective optical coupling and beam profile shaping unit comprising an optically transparent body having an outer surface that is provided with: “ followed by “a first free form reflective area and a second free form reflective area that are arranged with respect to each other and with respect to the first optical interface and the second optical interface to provide an optical path for propagation of: optical radiation entering the optically transparent body via the first optical interface towards the second optical interface as a result of reflections successively occurring at the first free form reflective area and the second free form reflective area; or optical radiation entering the optically transparent body via the second optical interface towards the first optical interface, as a result of reflections successively occurring at the second free form reflective area and the first free form reflective area” is unclear and renders the claim indefinite. What does it mean for the outer surface of the optically transparent body to be provided with a first free form reflective area and a second free form reflective area, in combination with the light traveling within the body experiencing reflections at the first free form reflective area and the second free form reflective area? If the outer surface has a reflective area and the light reflects off of it, wouldn’t the light need to come from outside the body and be reflected to the outside of the body? An outer surface could be provided with a coating having a reflective area that reflects light inside the optically transparent body. Is this what the limitation refers to? However, it is suggested in the specification that the means for reflection includes total internal reflection, which does not appear to be consistent with a reflective area being provided on the outer surface of the optically transparent body (see paragraphs 0035, 0055, and 0149). For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood to require reflective materials to be provided on the outer surface of the optically transparent body to reflect light traveling within the optically transparent body, since these paragraphs also describe reflective coatings to enhance reflection (see paragraphs 0035 and 0055).
Regarding claim 3: Similar to point (c), the outer surface being provided with a flat reflective area is unclear. For the purpose of examination, it is also interpreted as requiring a reflective material to be provided having a flat reflective area on the outer surface of the optically transparent body.
Regarding claims 3 and 6-9: The limitation “the optical path”, as it appears in each of the claims, has insufficient antecedent basis. Claim 1 defines two possible optical paths, light being input at the first optical interface and output from the second optical interface or light being input at the second optical interface and output from the first optical interface. These are understood to be two different optical paths.
Regarding claim 7: Similar to point (c), the outer surface being provided with a third free form reflective area is unclear. For the purpose of examination, it is also interpreted as requiring a reflective material to be provided having a third free form reflective area on the outer surface of the optically transparent body.
Regarding claim 10: It is unclear whether this claim requires the optically transparent body to be transparent to all wavelengths in the recited ranges or just one wavelength in the recited ranges. Therefore it is unclear whether the preferable range narrows or broadens the claim. Either way, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 10 recites the recitation “a wavelength in at least a range from 1000nm to 2000nm”, and the claim also recites “preferably from 1300nm to 1600nm”. Interpreting the claim as requiring the optically transparent body to be transparent to at least one wavelength within the recited ranges, the former is the broad statement of the range/limitation and the latter is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. For the purpose of examination, it is considered that an optically transparent body being transparent to at least a single wavelength within the range of 1000nm to 2000nm meets the claim limitation.
Regarding claims 2-3 and 5-15: Dependent claims 2-3 and 5-15 inherently contain all of the deficiencies of any base or intervening claims 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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi (US 2015/0378104; hereinafter Takahashi).
Regarding claim 1: Takahashi disclosesA reflective optical coupling and beam profile shaping unit (Fig. 14, coupling optical system 1) that is suitable for attachment to a photonic integrated circuit, PIC, for covering an optical interface of the PIC (while the coupler is not shown to be attached to a PIC for covering an optical interface of the PIC, it is considered to be suitable for attachment to a PIC for covering an optical interface of the PIC), the reflective optical coupling and beam profile shaping unit comprising an optically transparent body (Fig. 14, decentered prism 10) having an outer surface that is provided with: a first optical interface (Fig. 14, entrance surface 15) that is configured and arranged to enable transmission of optical radiation into or out of the optically transparent body, the optical radiation having a first optical beam profile that comprises a first spatial distribution and a second spatial distribution that are orthogonal with respect to each other (any of the light beams from single core fibers 2a, 2b, or 2c inherently have a first optical beam profile that comprises a first spatial distribution and a second spatial distribution that are orthogonal with respect to each other); a second optical interface (Fig. 14, exit surface 16) that is configured and arranged to enable transmission of the optical radiation out of or into the optically transparent body, the optical radiation having a second optical beam profile that at least has a different shape than the first optical beam profile (see paragraphs 0110 and 0111; the reflective surfaces 11 and 12 are rotationally asymmetric and have positive power; therefore, the optical radiation will inherently have a second optical beam profile that at least has a different shape than the first optical beam profile).
Takahashi further discloses that the optically transparent body further includes:
a first free form reflective area (Fig. 14, reflecting surface 11; see paragraph 0110) and a second free form reflective area (Fig. 14, reflecting surface 12; see paragraph 0110) that are arranged with respect to each other and with respect to the first optical interface and the second optical interface to provide an optical path for propagation of: optical radiation entering the optically transparent body via the first optical interface towards the second optical interface as a result of reflections successively occurring at the first free form reflective area and the second free form reflective area (Fig. 14 shows this); oroptical radiation entering the optically transparent body via the second optical interface towards the first optical interface, as a result of reflections successively occurring at the second free form reflective area and the first free form reflective area; wherein the first free form reflective area is configured to have a first magnification (see paragraph 0111; the first reflecting surface 11 has a positive power, i.e. a first magnification) to enable imaging of: a magnified version of the first spatial distribution of the first optical beam profile towards the second optical interface, said magnified version of the first spatial distribution being part of the second optical beam profile (Fig. 14 shows the light path, wherein the optical beam having the first optical beam profile and the first spatial distribution, is reflected off of the first reflective area, which imparts a first magnification, toward the second reflective area, and further toward the second optical interface, where it has the second optical beam profile; therefore the magnified version of the first spatial distribution is part of the second optical beam profile); or a magnified version of the first spatial distribution of the second optical beam profile towards the first optical interface, said magnified version of the first spatial distribution being part of the first optical beam profile; wherein the second free form reflective area is configured to have a second magnification (see Example 7, paragraphs 0163-0164, FFS[1] and FFS[2] which are described by different equations and therefore inherently have different magnifications), which is different from the first magnification of the first free form reflective area, to enable imaging of: a magnified version of the second spatial distribution of the first optical beam profile towards the second optical interface, said magnified version of the second spatial distribution being part of the second optical beam profile (Fig. 14 shows the light path, wherein the optical beam having the first optical beam profile and the first spatial distribution, is reflected off of the first reflective area, which imparts a first magnification, toward the second reflective area, and further toward the second optical interface, where it has the second optical beam profile; therefore the magnified version of the first spatial distribution is part of the second optical beam profile); or a magnified version of the second spatial distribution of the second optical beam profile towards the first optical interface, said magnified version of the second spatial distribution being part of the first optical beam profile.
Takahashi fails to disclose that the first free form reflective area and the second free form reflective area are provided on the outer surface of the optically transparent body. The decentered prism of Takahashi is taught to have “internal reflection”, understood by the examiner to be total internal reflection provided by a refractive index boundary. However, Takahashi also discloses an embodiment using reflecting mirrors, which are coated with gold to provide the reflectivity (see paragraphs 0056-0058). Takahashi further teaches that modifications or variations comprising appropriate combinations thereof are to be encompassed within the category of the invention (see paragraph 0174). Based on the Takahashi disclosure, 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 decentered prism of Takahashi by coating the outer surface with gold, thereby providing the first and second reflective areas on the outer surface of the decentered prism, in order to better reflect the light across a wider range of angles.
Regarding claim 2: Modified Takahashi teachesThe reflective optical coupling and beam profile shaping unit according to claim 1 (as applied above), wherein at least one of the first free form reflective area and the second free form reflective area are at least partially covered with a coating that comprises at least one of a dielectric material and a metal (the first and second free form reflective areas are coated with gold in the modified Takahashi device).
Regarding claim 10: Modified Takahashi disclosesThe reflective optical coupling and beam profile shaping unit according to claim 1 (as applied above), wherein the optically transparent body comprises at least one of glass and a polymer-based material (paragraphs 0128-0130) that is transparent for optical radiation having a wavelength in at least a range from 1000nm to 2000nm, preferably from 1300nm to 1600nm (Figs. 18, 19, and 20 correspond to example 7, Fig. 14, demonstrating that the device is transparent to wavelengths of 1600 nm and 1550 nm, falling within the claimed range).
Claims 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi (US 2015/0378104; hereinafter Takahashi) in view of Oyama (US 2018/0284367; hereinafter Oyama).
Regarding claim 11: Modified Takahashi teachesAn opto-electronic assembly comprising: a reflective optical coupling and beam profile shaping unit according to claim 1 (as applied above).
Takahashi further discloses that the opto-electronic assembly comprises: an optical source and/or an optical detector (see paragraph 0043) and a first optical guiding structure (Fig. 14, first optical element 2, any of the single core fibers 2a-c) having a third optical interface that is arranged at a first end part of the first optical guiding structure (Fig. 14, leftmost end of any of the single core fibers 2a-c) and a fourth optical interface (Fig. 14, rightmost end faces of any of the fibers 2a-2c shown to have beams in optical communication with the first optical interface 15) that is arranged in optical communication with the first optical interface at the outer surface of the optically transparent body of the reflective optical coupling and beam profile shaping unit (see light beams in Fig. 14), the first optical guiding structure being configured to guide radiation emitted by the optical source (although the optical source is not shown, an optical source is necessarily present in the system in order to supply an optical signal to the fibers) towards the first optical interface of the optically transparent body (Fig. 14, light path from the fibers 2a-c to the first optical interface of the optically transparent body) or to guide optical radiation from the first optical interface toward the optical detector; and a second optical guiding structure (Fig. 14, fiber 3) having a fifth optical interface (Fig. 14, end of fiber 3 facing the optically transparent body 1) that is arranged at a first end part of the second optical guiding structure and a sixth optical interface (Fig. 14, end of fiber 3 facing away from the optically transparent body 1) that is arranged at a second end part of the second optical guiding structure, the fifth optical interface being arranged in optical communication with the second optical interface at the outer surface of the optically transparent body (Fig. 14, see light path between second optical interface 16 and end face of fiber 3).
Takahashi fails to teach that the opto-electronic assembly comprises a PIC comprising the optical source and/or the optical detector; and the first optical guiding structure and the second optical guiding structure. However, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, Oyama taught using a prism including curved reflective areas (see Fig. 6) to couple light between fibers and components included on a PIC, provided in an assembly that keeps the respective components in optical alignment with each other. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the modified Takahashi device in the PIC-mounted system of Oyama, in order to obtain the benefits of the free form reflective surfaces of Takahashi while coupling between fibers and photonic components mounted on a circuit substrate, as taught by Oyama.
Regarding claim 12: Modified Takahashi teachesThe opto-electronic assembly according to claim 11 (as applied above), wherein the opto-electronic assembly comprises at least one of: a first alignment arrangement that is configured and arranged to keep the fifth optical interface of the second optical guiding structure and the second optical interface of the optically transparent body of the reflective optical coupling and beam profile shaping unit in optical alignment with each other (Oyama Fig. 6, first alignment arrangement includes housing 21, holding member 32, and plug lens 33, which keeps the optical fiber module, a second optical guiding structure having a fifth optical interface in optical alignment with the second optical interface of the optically transparent body); and a second alignment arrangement that is configured and arranged to keep the fourth optical interface of the first optical guiding structure of the PIC and the first optical interface of the optically transparent body in optical alignment with each other (Oyama Fig. 6, second alignment arrangement includes circuit substrate 11, housing 21, photoelectric converter 13, intermediate substrate, and solder, which keep the fourth optical interface of the first optical guiding structure of the PIC and the first optical interface of the optically transparent body in optical alignment with each other).
Regarding claim 13: Modified Takahashi teachesThe opto-electronic assembly according to claim 12 (as applied above), wherein the second optical guiding structure comprises at least one optical fiber (Fig. 6, optical fiber array 31 includes at least one optical fiber), and the first alignment arrangement is provided with at least one groove that is configured to receive said at least one optical fiber (Fig. 6, insertion port 21a is a groove to receive said at least one optical fiber).
Regarding claim 14: Modified Takahashi teachesThe opto-electronic assembly of claim 12 (as applied above), wherein said second alignment arrangement comprises first fixing members (solder) and second fixing members (intermediate substrate, see Oyama paragraph 0082) that are configured and arranged to associated the optically transparent body of the reflective optical coupling and beam profile shaping unit with at least one of the PIC and the first alignment arrangement, the first fixing members and the second fixing members being configured as at least one of elongated resilient members (the intermediate substrate is considered to be an elongated resilient member), elongated form-locking members, and elongated clamping members.
Regarding claim 15: An opto-electronic system comprising an opto-electronic assembly according to claim 11 (as applied above), wherein the opto-electronic system is one of a transmitter, a receiver, a transceiver, a coherent transmitter, a coherent receiver, and a coherent transceiver (see Oyama paragraph 0021, the modified device is a transmission system, or a transmitter).
Claims 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi (US 2015/0378104; hereinafter Takahashi) in view of Hayakawa et al. (US Patent No. 6,249,391; hereinafter Hayakawa).
Regarding claim 3: Modified Takahashi teaches the reflective optical coupling The reflective optical coupling and beam profile shaping unit according to claim 1, as applied above. Takahashi further discloses multiple embodiments having additional free form surfaces, which provide different optical paths with different optical path lengths through the system (see Figs. 3-5 and 15-16). Takahashi fails to disclose wherein the outer surface of the optically transparent body is provided with a flat reflective area that is arranged with respect to the first optical interface and the first free form reflective area or with respect to the first optical interface and the first free form reflective area or with respect to the second optical interface and the second free form reflective area to be part of the optical path enabling propagation of: optical radiation entering the optically transparent body via the first optical interface towards the second optical interface as a result of reflections successively occurring at: the flat reflective area, the first free form reflective area and the second free form reflective area; or the first free form reflective area, the second free form reflective area and the flat reflective area; or optical radiation entering the optically transparent body via the second optical interface toward the first optical interface, as a result of reflections successively occurring at: the flat reflective area, the second free form reflective area and the first free form reflective area; or the second free form reflective area, the first free form reflective area and the flat reflective area. However, Hayakawa, also related to prisms having a plurality of free-form surfaces (see abstract and col. 5, lines 50-55), teaches a plurality of configurations (see in particular examples 1-10, col. 20-21) which include some embodiments wherein all of the reflective areas are free form areas, and embodiments which additionally include flat reflective areas (see Examples 8 and 10). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that modifying the Takahashi device to include a flat reflective area as presently claimed, i.e. enabling optical radiation entering the optically transparent body via the first optical interface towards the second optical interface as a result of reflections successively occurring at: the flat reflective area, the first free form reflective area and the second free form reflective area; or the first free form reflective area, the second free form reflective area and the flat reflective area; or optical radiation entering the optically transparent body via the second optical interface toward the first optical interface, as a result of reflections successively occurring at: the flat reflective area, the second free form reflective area and the first free form reflective area; or the second free form reflective area, the first free form reflective area and the flat reflective area, would change the light path in a predictable manner, as it would involve a simple additional reflection off of a planar surface. Therefore, the device would function just as well as the Takahashi device and is considered to be a matter of obvious design choice, where it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to supply the prism with an additional flat reflective area enabling the optical path from the first optical interface toward the second optical interface, or vice versa, to accommodate any design constraints for a particular application.
Regarding claim 5: Modified Takahashi teachesThe reflective optical coupling and beam profile shaping unit according to claim 3 (as applied above), wherein at least one of the first free form reflective area, the second free form reflective area and the flat reflective area are at least partially covered with a coating that comprises at least one of a dielectric material and a metal (the first and second free form reflective areas are coated with gold in the modified Takahashi device).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
a. Regarding claim 6: The closest found prior art, Takahashi (US 2015/0378104; hereinafter Takahashi), Hayakawa et al. (US Patent No. 6,249,391; hereinafter Hayakawa) and Yan et al. (US 2022/0120899; hereinafter Yan), fail to teach or suggest: The reflective optical coupling and beam profile shaping unit according to claim 1, wherein the first free form reflective area has a parabolic-based shape and is configured to have a fifth focal length for the first spatial distribution of the first optical beam profile or the second optical beam profile, respectively, and the second free form reflective area has a parabolic-based shape and is configured to have a sixth focal length for the second spatial distribution of the first optical beam profile or the second optical beam profile, respectively, the sixth focal length being larger than the fifth focal length of the first free form reflective area, wherein the first optical interface and the first free form reflective area are arranged at a fifth distance, d5, with respect to each other as seen in a propagation direction of the optical radiation along the optical path, the fifth distance, d5, being smaller than or equal to the fifth focal length of the first free form reflective area, and wherein the first optical interface and the second free form reflective area are arranged at a sixth distance, d6, with respect to each other as seen in the propagation direction of the optical radiation along the optical path via the first free form reflective area, the sixth distance, d6, being smaller than or equal to the sixth focal length of the second free form reflective area.
Therefore, claim 6 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claims 7-9: At least due to the allowable features of claim 6, claims 7-9 would also be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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