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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: second and third protrusions 351 and 353 are described in the specification (paragraph [00111]) as in Figures 13A and 13B. However, these protrusions are only shown in 14B. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Risato (GB 2322237 A).
Regarding claim 1:
Risato discloses sub-mount comprising: a mount substrate (Figure 1, Figure 2, Dielectric Substrate 15 is the substrate of the larger device, which is the sub-mount);
a signal electrode (Figure 1, Figure 2, signal line conductor 13) extending in a first direction on the mount substrate (15);
and a ground electrode separated from the signal electrode and disposed on one side of the mount substrate (Figure 1-3, ground conductors 11, 12, 16), wherein the ground electrode comprises:
a lower electrode disposed on a bottom surface of the mount substrate (ground electrode 16);
and upper electrodes disposed on one side of the mount substrate (Figure 3, upper ground conductors 11 and 12) and connected to the lower electrode through the inside of the mount substrate (Figures 1-3, through holes 14 may be “defined as those obtained by plating the wall surfaces of the through-holes formed in the dielectric substrate 15, or by filling the through-holes with a conductor”, making them a bona fine electrical connection inside of the mount substrate) or a side surface (Figure 15, Figure 16 shows side plating 54 used instead to electrically connect the ground conductors).
Regarding claim 2:
Risato discloses the sub-mount of claim 1, wherein:
the ground electrode further comprises a via electrode disposed in the mount substrate to connect the upper electrodes to the lower electrode (Figures 1-3, through holes 14 are electrical vias).
Regarding claim 3:
Risato discloses the sub-mount of claim 1, wherein:
the ground electrode further comprises a side electrode disposed on a side surface of the mount substrate to connect the upper electrodes to the lower electrode (Figure 15, Figure 16 shows side plating 54 used instead to electrically connect the ground conductors).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Risato (GB 2322237 A) in view of Franco (US 20220334419 A1).
Regarding claim 4:
Risato discloses the sub-mount of claim 3, wherein:
the ground electrode further comprises ground wire extension electrodes (6) disposed between the signal electrode and the upper electrodes.
These are not explicitly buffer electrodes, but they modulate the electric field intensity within the waveguide to enhance modulation efficiency, which achieves the same functional result as the claimed buffer electrodes.
Franco teaches a finite-element-analysis of buffer electrodes between the signal and ground electrodes in a modulator (Figure 1, Section II “The Model” describes the parameters and waveguide configuration, which follows the electrode-signal-electrode structure found in the instant application and Risato), wherein the ground electrode further comprises buffer electrodes disposed between the signal electrode and the upper electrodes.
the instant application indicates that buffer electrodes may be floating electrodes, and Franco teaches the use of floating electrodes in the buffer layer which lies at least partially between the ground and signal electrodes (Figure 1). The purpose of this configuration is to use the buffer electrode to control the electric field (Figure 2) such that the signal may propagate more efficiently and with lower loss (standard principles of electricity and magnetism, wherein a controlled electric field allows for a controlled voltage, and thus a voltage that may complement a signal electric field for efficient propagation).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the invention described in the rejection of claim 3 above under the teachings of Risato and Franco, to include buffer electrodes disposed between the signal electrode and ground electrodes. This may be accomplished while exercising routine design judgment with techniques and components known in the art, and would predictably result in a device where the electric field in the signal propagation region of the device is more precisely controlled to enable efficient signal propagation at low transmission loss.
Claim(s) 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Risato (GB 2322237 A) in view of Franco (US 20220334419 A1), and further in view of MIT (US 11016360 B1).
Regarding claim 5:
Risato in view of Franco discloses the sub-mount of claim 4, wherein:
Risato does not disclose the signal electrode has a first protrusion disposed between the upper electrodes.
MIT teaches an optical modulator with RF electrodes, wherein a signal electrode (Figure 2A, signal conductor 220) has a first protrusion disposed between the upper electrodes (Figure 2A, a first protrusion denoted by capacitive structure[s] 250 is describes as containing multiple ‘fangs’ 251 that themselves protrude from the ground and signal electrodes 230 and 220).
Most importantly, the prior art teaches an underlying motivation for altering the geometry of these components: the protrusions, their height and geometry, and their characteristics with respect to signal and ground electrodes, including the height and geometric aspects of the electrodes as well (Abstract, “The inductance and the signal insertion losses may be tuned by changing the sizes and shapes of a signal conductor, a ground conductor, and a slot formed between the signal and ground conductors without appreciably changing the capacitance or the electric field distribution”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the invention described in the rejection of claim 4 above under the teachings of MIT to include a first protrusion disposed between the upper electrodes. This may be accomplished using methods, materials, and routine design oversight known to a skilled artisan and would predictably result in a E-field controlled optical modulator device wherein the E-field in the interaction regions for the signal are well defined and controlled such that efficient signal propagation is maintained.
Regarding claim 6:
Risato in view of Franco and MIT disclose the sub-mount of claim 5.
Risato does not disclose that the upper electrodes have second protrusions disposed at both sides of the first protrusion.
MIT teaches an optoelectronic device with a first protrusion (see rejection of claim 5 above) and second protrusions disposed at both sides of the first protrusion (in another embodiment, Figure 2C shows this most plainly, the ground electrodes contain 250a which is disposed on both sides of a first protrusion 250b.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the invention described in the rejection of claim 5 above under the teachings of MIT. This may be accomplished using ordinary placement techniques and design oversight in the context of E-field distribution, inductance, and signal insertion losses, and would predictably result in a device where the manufacturer can fine tune the E-field distribution to maintain signal integrity in production.
Regarding claim 7:
Risato in view of Franco and MIT disclose the sub-mount of claim 6.
Risato does not teach a second protrusion.
MIT teaches second protrusions, wherein each of the second protrusions is lower than the first protrusion (Figure 2C shows this explicitly).
Regarding claim 8:
Risato in view of Franco and MIT disclose the sub-mount of claim 6,
Risato does not explicitly disclose that the buffer electrodes have third protrusions disposed between the first protrusion and the second protrusions.
However, as taught by MIT and described in the rejection of claim 6 above, the fang structures are discrete protrusions on multiple conductors (Signal and Ground, as shown in Figure 2B) that are expressly used for E-field control and field-distribution fine tuning, as a skilled artisan recognizes the importances of an E-field held at specific voltage for optimal signal propagation.
As such, a skilled artisan would have recognized that the same protruding structure may likewise be applied to any electrode used for field shaping, including floating/buffer electrodes, to further refine the impedance and electric-field distribution.
Accordingly, providing protruding structures on the buffer electrodes already taught in the Risato/Franco device, i.e. the claimed third protrusions 353 in the instant app, would have been a straightforward and predictable extension of the MIT teaching to the buffer electrodes already present in Franco, in the same E-field control context.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Risato (GB 2322237 A) in view of Franco (US 20220334419 A1), and further in view of MIT (US 11016360 B1) and Han (US 20180143463 A1).
Regarding claim 9:
Risato in view of Franco and MIT disclose the sub-mount of claim 8.
Risato does not teach third protrusions, and while MIT provides some motivation for the physics that underlies geometry and positioning of electrode and capacitor components for impedance and E-field control via the fangs 251/250a-c, it does not explicitly motivate a third protrusion being lower than the first and higher than the second.
Han provides this motivation on a technical basis, teaching that electrode height “may be adjusted to adjust each of the lengths of the first and second bonding wires 262 and 264. Since each of the first and second bonding wires 262 and 264 has an inductance, the first and second bonding wires 262 and 264 may be adjusted in length to easily change a modulation bandwidth of the EAM 300”.
From a technical perspective, the skilled artisan recognizes that this “W” shape in the height distribution of the third, second, and first protrusions where the third’s height is between the first and seconds leads to improved mode overlap, prevent field lines from immediately terminating at the ground (this is the importance of the buffer layer/electrodes), and increases the local effective permittivity gradually rather than having a sharp drop off to the ground. As such, the E-field is steadier and the signal propagates in a more stable environment.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the invention described in the rejection of claim 8 above under the teachings of Han to ensure that each of the third protrusions is lower than the first protrusion and higher than each of the second protrusions. This may be accomplished using routine design oversight in the machining and/or placement of the already-taught protrusions, and would predictably result in a device with maximally controlled E-fields and impedance control for efficient signal propagation.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Risato (GB 2322237 A).
Regarding claim 10:
Risato discloses the sub-mount of claim 1, wherein:
the mount substrate is disclosed as being a ceramic (Al2O3) dielectric with a thickness of 250 microns (0.250 mm), and the width of the signal line conductor is disclosed to be 240 microns (0.240 mm).
in the instant application, the claimed mount substrate has a thickness of 0.254 mm, and the signal electrode has a width of 0.254 mm. The substrate thickness and conductor widths in Risato are closely within range of the claimed values.
Absent criticality at these values and any specifically claimed effects, a skilled artisan does not recognize a functional difference for values this minutely separated, and thus the impedance and transmission performance that result from these thicknesses and widths are a results-effective variable known to a skilled artisan that are subject to routine optimization, and would therefore be obvious.
Claim(s) 11-12, 14-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyazaki (US 10558064 B2) in view of Risato (GB 2322237 A).
Regarding claim 11:
Miyazaki discloses an optical modulation module (Abstract, the optical communication module includes a modulator, making it an optical module with an optical modulator, which reads on optical modulation module), comprising:
a housing (Abstract discloses that the modulation element is housed alongside a circuit);
a main substrate disposed in the housing (Figure 8, Figure 9, a flexible printed circuit [FPC] is disposed in the housing 1, and also referred to as ‘end of wiring substrate’);
an optical modulator disposed on one side of the main substrate (Figure 1 shows the optical modulator, denoted as “OM”, disposed on one side of the main substrate);
a driver circuit configured to input a data signal to the optical modulator (Figure 1, Figure 2, Drv)
Risato discloses sub-mount comprising: a mount substrate (Figure 1, Figure 2, Dielectric Substrate 15 is the substrate of the larger device, which is the sub-mount);
a signal electrode (Figure 1, Figure 2, signal line conductor 13) extending in a first direction on the mount substrate (15);
and a ground electrode separated from the signal electrode and disposed on one side of the mount substrate (Figure 1-3, ground conductors 11, 12, 16), wherein the ground electrode comprises:
a lower electrode disposed on a bottom surface of the mount substrate (ground electrode 16);
and upper electrodes disposed on one side of the mount substrate (Figure 3, upper ground conductors 11 and 12) and connected to the lower electrode through the inside of the mount substrate (Figures 1-3, through holes 14 may be “defined as those obtained by plating the wall surfaces of the through-holes formed in the dielectric substrate 15, or by filling the through-holes with a conductor”, making them a bona fine electrical connection inside of the mount substrate) or a side surface (Figure 15, Figure 16 shows side plating 54 used instead to electrically connect the ground conductors).
While Risato does not explicitly disclose a sub-mount disposed on the other side of the main substrate and connected to the optical modulator, both references address high frequency modulation of optical signals and the combination yields predictable results in providing a mechanical mounting and RF feed structures within a module, which aligns with industry efforts to scale down and compactify these devices.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the invention described Miyazaki by taking the system-level architecture and incorporating the sub mount of Risato into the device. This would be a natural step for a skilled artisan as it would allow the sub mount of Risato, used for optical signal modulation and transmission, to operate in a functionally equivalent environment with the benefit of being encased and used in a larger system. This may be accomplished using ordinary design oversight a skilled artisan possesses, and through methods and materials known in the art, leading to a device which predictably controls and modulates signals for optical transmission in a compact device.
Regarding claim 12:
Miyazaki in view of Risato discloses the optical modulation module of claim 11, wherein the main substrate comprises a printed circuit board (the wiring substrate FPC is a flexible printed circuit, a type of printed circuit board).
Regarding claim 14:
Miyazaki in view of Risato discloses the optical modulation module of claim 11.
Miyazaki does not expressly disclose that the mount substrate contains ceramic.
Risato expressly discloses a ceramic mount substrate (mount substrate 2 is disclosed to be Al2O3 [alumina] ceramic).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the invention described in the rejection of claim 11 above under the teachings of Risato to include a ceramic mount substrate. This may be accomplished using materials known in the art (alumina ceramic), whose physical properties and benefits in the art are also known to a skilled artisan. This would predictably result in a device wherein the sub mount benefits from the electric, thermal, and mechanical properties of ceramic, which impart greater control over the system leading to high performance over long timescale and low signal loss.
Regarding claim 15:
Miyazaki in view of Risato discloses the optical modulation module of claim 11.
Miyazaki does not disclose a via electrode.
Risato discloses an optical modulator system, wherein a ground electrode further comprises a via electrode disposed in the mount substrate to connect the upper electrodes to the lower electrode (Figures 1-3, through holes 14 are electrical vias).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the invention described in the rejection of claim 11 above under the teachings of Risato to include a sub mounted optical modulator device, wherein the optical modulator device contained a ground electrode with an upper and lower electrode separated by a substrate, wherein the substrate contained through-via electrodes for connecting the upper and lower ground electrodes. This may be accomplished using ordinary techniques known to a skilled artisan and would predictably result in a device where the ground electrodes remain physically separated by a substrate but also are electrically connected for proper grounding in the device, which leads to a steadier and controlled electrical field distribution.
Regarding claim 16:
Miyazaki teaches an optical communication device (Title) comprising:
a light source configured to generate light (Figure 1, laser light source LD);
an optical modulation module configured to modulate the light (Figure 1, the system of Tx+Drv+OM+IF+LD+OI+ICR+housing is an optical modulation module, though Tx+Drv+OM are the most functionally pertinent components);
an optical transmitter configured to transmit the modulated light (Figure 1, optical interface OI would carry out the light signals from the OM);
and a signal source connected to the optical modulator and configured to transmit a data signal to an optical modulator (Figure 1, Tx/Drv are connected to OM)
an optical modulator (Abstract, the optical communication module includes a modulator, making it an optical module with an optical modulator, which reads on optical modulation module), comprising:
a housing (Abstract discloses that the modulation element is housed alongside a circuit);
a main substrate disposed in the housing (Figure 8, Figure 9, a flexible printed circuit [FPC] is disposed in the housing 1, and also referred to as ‘end of wiring substrate’);
an optical modulator disposed on one side of the main substrate (Figure 1 shows the optical modulator, denoted as “OM”, disposed on one side of the main substrate);
a driver circuit configured to input a data signal to the optical modulator (Figure 1, Figure 2, Drv)
Risato teaches an optical modulator sub-mount that comprises (modulator expressly taught, mounting is an obvious and simple means to use the device in a larger device):
a mount substrate (Figure 1, Figure 2, Dielectric Substrate 15 is the substrate of the larger device, which is the sub-mount);
a signal electrode (Figure 1, Figure 2, signal line conductor 13) extending in a first direction on the mount substrate (15);
and a ground electrode separated from the signal electrode and disposed on one side of the mount substrate (Figure 1-3, ground conductors 11, 12, 16), wherein the ground electrode comprises:
a lower electrode disposed on a bottom surface of the mount substrate (ground electrode 16);
and upper electrodes disposed on one side of the mount substrate (Figure 3, upper ground conductors 11 and 12) and connected to the lower electrode through the inside of the mount substrate (Figures 1-3, through holes 14 may be “defined as those obtained by plating the wall surfaces of the through-holes formed in the dielectric substrate 15, or by filling the through-holes with a conductor”, making them a bona fine electrical connection inside of the mount substrate) or a side surface (Figure 15, Figure 16 shows side plating 54 used instead to electrically connect the ground conductors).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the invention described Miyazaki under the teachings of Risato to include an optical modulator sub mount as taught in Risato, such that it contains the additional substructure (substrate, electrodes, vias/side plating) so that the device may be further configured to provide RF impedance-controlled driving of the modulator OM in Miyazaki. This may be accomplished using components and placement techniques known in the art, and would predictably result in a more optimally tuned device, as the additional grounding features would benefit the high-frequency driving by ensuring a better field intensity distribution for carrying a signal with minimal loss.
Regarding claim 17:
Miyazaki in view of Risato discloses the optical communication device of claim 16, further comprising a cable configured to connect the signal source to the optical modulator (Drv is connected to FPC, which is referred to as “end of wiring substrate FPC”, implying that wires/cables are used to connect the Drv which carries the signal to the OM).
Additionally, the FPC itself is a type of cable, behaving like a planar collection of flexible and conductive electrical signal paths, a functional equivalent of a plurality of wires.
Regarding claim 18:
Miyazaki in view of Risato discloses the optical communication device of claim 16.
Miyazaki is silent on upper electrode geometries.
Risato discloses the sub mount with upper electrodes, wherein each of the upper electrodes has a rectangular shape:
Figure 1 shows upper electrodes 11 and 12 (ground) and 13 (signal) as all having rectangular shapes (with the exception of the effects of through holes 17, 14, etc. on the surface geometry).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the invention described in the rejection of claim 16 above under the teachings of Risato to include a sub mount with upper electrodes that are rectangular in shape. This may be accomplished using routine design judgment during placement and machining, as a rectangular shape has known RF and E-field properties and is a standard shape in lithography and machining for optical components. This would predictably result in a device with predictably RF properties which is produced efficiently at scale and has sufficient surface area for the inclusion of through vias or side connections.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyazaki (US 10558064 B2) in view of Risato (GB 2322237 A), MIT.
Regarding claim 19:
Miyazaki in view of Risato discloses the optical communication device of claim 16.
Miyazaki is silent on the geometry of upper electrodes.
MIT teaches an optoelectronic device, wherein electrodes (650a-d) between signal and ground electrodes have a comb shape (Figure 7a shows this explicitly).
The purpose of these comb/teeth electrodes is to tune capacitance and field distribution in the RF line adjacent to the optical waveguide – directly analogous to the claimed upper electrodes used to shape the RF field in the claimed sub-mount.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the invention described in the rejection of claim 16 above under the teachings of MIT to include upper electrodes with a comb shape. This may be accomplished using components, placement techniques, and machining techniques known in the art, and would predictably result in a device with even finer tuned field distribution and electrical property control (capacitance, impedance, etc.) in the signal interaction region, leading to efficient signal propagation and low loss in a compact optoelectronic device.
Regarding claim 20:
Miyazaki in view of Risato discloses the optical communication device of claim 16.
Miyazaki discloses that the ground electrode is between 0.1 and 0.4 mm, but not the signal electrode (Figure 1D, wgnd = 125 microns, which is .125 mm and falls in the range)
Risato discloses a sub-mount, wherein each of the upper electrodes has a width of 0.1 mm to 0.4 mm (the width of the signal line conductor is disclosed to be 240 microns [0.240 mm])
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the invention described in the rejection of claim 16 above under the teachings of Miyazaki in Risato, to ensure that the ground and signal electrodes have widths between 0.1 and 0.4 mm. This may be accomplished using ordinary design oversight known to a skilled artisan, and would predictably result in a device with known E-field intensity and capacitance/impedance properties which are conducive to a stable signal connection that operates with minimal loss.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyazaki (US 10558064 B2) in view of Risato (GB 2322237 A), and further in view of Yap (US 10451951 B1).
Regarding claim 13:
Miyazaki in view of Risato discloses the optical modulation module of claim 11.
Miyazaki does not explicitly disclose that the optical modulator comprises a Mach-Zehnder modulator, but MZMs are well known in the art and Miyazaki teaches towards the use of an optoelectric modulator in the following passage:
“…With regard to the optical modulation element, it is possible to employ a technology in the related art. For example, the optical modulation element has a configuration in which an optical waveguide, a modulation electrode, and the like are embedded in a lithium niobate substrate having an electro-optic effect or a semiconductor substrate…” (Col. 6, ln 13-35, Figs. 5-6)
Yap explicitly teaches the use of a Mach-Zehnder Interferometer as an optical modulator, as well as various geometries and field intensity configurations resulting therein (Fig. 7).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the invention described in the rejection of claim 12 above under the teachings of Yap to include a Mach-Zehnder Interferometer (MZM) as the optical modulator. This may be accomplishing using components and machining/placement techniques known to a skilled artisan, and would be motivated as an essential component for utilizing a high-frequency electrical drive signal in optical carrier light that experiences intensity modulation in the device. Additionally, MZMs and their production and effects were well understood to a skilled artisan at the time of filing, making their use an obvious design choice, and production cost-effective as well.
Additional Prior Art
This prior art is made of record but not used in any rejection above:
Kagaya (US 7130100 B2)
relates to optical modules for optical communications, and more particularly, to optical modules suitable for driving.
Miyazaki (US 20190113778 A1)
relates to an optical modulator, and particularly relates to a wiring structure of a highly-integrated modulator such as a dual-wavelength integrated modulator.
Kataoka (US 20180288874 A1)
relates to a connection structure between an optical device such as an optical modulator and a circuit substrate on which an electronic circuit configured to drive the optical device is mounted, and an optical transmission apparatus using the connection structure, and more particularly, to a connection structure between the optical device and the circuit substrate through a flexible printed circuit of the optical device, and an optical transmission apparatus using the connection structure.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PREET B PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-2579. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu: 8:30 am - 6:30 pm.
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 A 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.
/PREET B PATEL/Examiner, Art Unit 2874
/THOMAS A HOLLWEG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874