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.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: ”and wherein the plurality of optical feedthroughs of the lid include a first optical feedthrough and a second optical feedthrough, the first optical feedthrough and the second optical feedthrough are defined by different sidewalls of the lid” is grammatically incorrect. At least an “and” should be inserted after the final comma of the claim. 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.
Claim 7 is 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. The term “lead-in draft” is unclear. Is it a protrusion? That appears to correspond to the features 530A-1 and 530A-2 in Fig. 5A. “lead-in draft” is not defined in the specification, and it does not appear to be a well-known term of art. Therefore, the term should be defined in the claim so that the metes and bounds of claim 7 are clear. For the purpose of examination, “lead-in draft” is understood to refer to the protrusions shown as 530A-1 and 530A-2 in Fig. 5A.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-12, 15-16, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sasaki et al. (US Patent No. 5,960,141; hereinafter Sasaki).
Regarding claim 1: Sasaki disclosesAn optical engine, comprising: a lid (Figs. 17-21, lid comprises casing 132, epoxy resin 156, radiation fins 158; Fig. 9-10, lid comprises housing 70 and epoxy resin 76) defining an optical feedthrough (Fig. 18, opening 134, in addition to the epoxy resin 156 shown in Fig. 19 closing the final side of said opening; Fig. 10 shows opening 72 in housing 70 for optical fiber connector 38) configured to fully encircle an optical channel received therein (see Figs. 18 and 19, together, opening 134 and epoxy resin 156 fully encircle an optical channel, i.e. ferrule 18’ and fiber inserted into ferrule; Fig. 10 shows that the connector is configured to fully encircle the connector 38, housing optical fiber 40, when fully assembled); and a photonic integrated circuit (PIC) (Figs. 18, optical module 54’ is a photonics integrated circuit, as the optical module is disclosed to include a photoelectric converter mounted on a substrate, best represented in Fig. 7, optical module 54; see also col. 9, lines 55-60; Fig. 9, optical module 54 is a photonics integrated circuit by the same reasoning) covered by the lid (Figs. 10, 18 and 19 show that the photonic integrated circuit is covered by the lid) and configured to optically couple with the optical channel (see Fig. 7 and col. 7, lines 30-32).
Regarding claim 2: Sasaki disclosesThe optical engine of claim 1 (as applied above), further comprising: a substrate (Figs. 9-10, printed wiring board is a substrate; alternatively, Fig. 18, metal block 138 is a substrate), wherein the PIC is disposed on the substrate and the lid contacts the substrate (Figs. 9-10 show this; alternatively, Figs. 17-18 show this), wherein the lid and the substrate collectively enclose the PIC (Fig. 10 shows this; alternatively, Fig. 19 shows this), and wherein the lid has a lid extension (Fig. 10, any amount of the housing 70, including but not limited to the portion extending beyond the forward edge of the printed wiring board 26 can be considered part of the lid extension, as it is extending from a back end of the lid; alternatively, the opening 134 and the epoxy within the opening are considered to be the lid extension; alternatively, 142 and 144 can be considered a lid extension extending beyond a forward edge of the substrate) extending beyond a forward edge of the substrate, the lid extension defines the optical feedthrough (Fig. 10 shows this; alternatively, Figs. 18-19 show this).
Regarding claim 3: Sasaki disclosesThe optical engine of claim 2 (as applied above), wherein the optical engine defines a first direction (the optical engine defines a plurality of directions, including upward from the printed wiring board 26 toward the epoxy resin 76), and wherein the lid extension extends along the first direction a length that is at least a quarter of a length of the substrate that extends along the first direction (the lid extension extends in the upward direction a length that is at least a quarter of a length of the substrate that extends along the upward direction, since along this axis the lid extension is longer than the printed wiring board).
Regarding claim 4: Sasaki disclosesThe optical engine of claim 2 (as applied above), wherein the optical engine defines a feedthrough direction (Fig. 10, the axis of optical fiber 40 is along the feedthrough direction), and wherein the lid extension extends along the feedthrough direction so as to be able to be operable to accommodate an optical ferrule (Fig. 10, optical connector 38 is an optical ferrule) and a spring (as shown in Figs. 5 and 6, the optical connector 38 includes a spring 52) of the optical channel.
Regarding claim 5: Sasaki disclosesThe optical engine of claim 2 (as applied above), wherein the lid extension defines a look-through (Fig. 18, transparent epoxy defines a look-through, considered to be part of the lid extension; additionally, the area on the fiber-side surface of 144 is considered to define a look-through ) that allows for visibility of an optical interface where an optical ferrule of the optical channel interfaces with the PIC or an optical component coupled with the PIC (see Figs. 19-21, an optical interface where an optical ferrule of the optical channel interfaces with an optical component coupled with the PIC).
Regarding claim 6: Sasaki disclosesThe optical engine of claim 1 (as applied above), wherein the lid has a sidewall that defines the optical feedthrough (Fig. 18, the wall that 138 points to is considered a sidewall of the lid that defines the optical feedthrough).
Regarding claim 7: Sasaki disclosesThe optical engine of claim 1 (as applied above), wherein the lid has a sidewall (sidewall of lid is on the right side of casing 132, opposite from the sidewall with the reference 132 pointing to it in Fig. 19, i.e. the sidewall that has the opening) and a lead-in draft (Figs. 18-19, projections 140 are lead-in drafts, as best understood by examiner) that extends from the sidewall, the sidewall and the lead-in draft collectively define the optical feedthrough (Figs. 18-19 show this).
Regarding claim 8: Sasaki disclosesThe optical engine of claim 1 (as applied above), wherein the optical feedthrough has a feedthrough region (Fig. 18, projections 140 define the feedthrough region) and a keyway (Fig. 18, recesses 142 are keyways and are contiguous with the feedthrough region) contiguous with the feedthrough region.
Regarding claim 9: Sasaki discloses The optical engine of claim 1 (as applied above), wherein the lid has a key that extends into the optical feedthrough (see Fig. 10, when the device is fully assembled with the connector 38, the connector 38 acts as a key, since it has a shape mating with the lid; therefore the lid is considered to have a key that extends into the optical feedthrough).
Regarding claim 10: Sasaki disclosesThe optical engine of claim 1 (as applied above), wherein the optical feedthrough has an asymmetric shape as viewed along a feedthrough direction of the optical channel (Fig. 18, three sides of the optical feedthrough are formed by the casing, while the fourth side is filled by the epoxy, leading to an asymmetrically-shaped feedthrough; see col. 10, lines 11-24).
Regarding claim 11: Sasaki disclosesThe optical engine of claim 1 (as applied above), wherein the lid has a top wall (Fig. 18, the wall of casing 132, opposite from the wall that the reference 132 points to, and from which the projection 140 extends is considered to be a top wall), and wherein the optical feedthrough is defined by the top wall (see Fig. 18, the optical feedthrough is defined by the top wall).
Regarding claim 12: Sasaki disclosesThe optical engine of claim 1 (as applied above), wherein the lid has a sidewall (Fig. 18, the wall of casing 132, opposite from the wall that the reference 132 points to, and from which the projection 140 extends is considered to be a sidewall) and a top wall (Fig. 19, the wall of casing 132 from which the radiation fins extend is considered to be a top wall), and wherein the optical feedthrough is defined collectively by the sidewall and the top wall (this is shown in Fig. 18).
Regarding claim 15: Sasaki disclosesThe optical engine of claim 1 (as applied above), wherein the lid has an optical shell (Fig. 19, transparent epoxy 156 and casing 132 is considered to be an optical shell) and a thermal shell (Fig. 20, thermal shell comprises metal block with radiation fins 158) that are removably coupled with one another (these components can be removed from each other, at least by breaking or cutting the fins and lead terminals from the casing), the optical feedthrough is defined by the optical shell (the optical feedthrough, as shown in Figs. 18-19, is defined by the transparent epoxy 156 and the casing 132, which make up the optical shell).
Regarding claim 16: Sasaki disclosesThe optical engine of claim 15 (as applied above), wherein the optical shell and the thermal shell are formed of different materials (see col. 8, lines 53-54 and col. 9, lines 58-59, casing is heat-resistant resin; transparent epoxy is epoxy; metal block with radiation fins is metal, see col. 9, lines 60-63; therefore the optical shell and the thermal shell are formed of different materials).
Regarding claim 19: Sasaki disclosesAn opto-electronic apparatus, comprising: an optical channel (see Figs. 18 and 19, ferrule 18’ and fiber inserted into ferrule; Fig. 10, connector 38 and optical fiber 40); and at least one optical engine (the following elements considered together are an optical engine), comprising: a lid (Figs. 17-21, lid comprises casing 132, epoxy resin 156, radiation fins 158; Fig. 9-10, lid comprises housing 70 and epoxy resin 76) defining an optical feedthrough (Fig. 18, opening 134, in addition to the epoxy resin 156 shown in Fig. 19 closing the final side of said opening; Fig. 10 shows opening 72 in housing 70 for optical fiber connector 38) that fully encircles the optical channel received therein (see Figs. 18 and 19, together, opening 134 and epoxy resin 156 fully encircle an optical channel, i.e. ferrule 18’ and fiber inserted into ferrule; Fig. 10 shows that the connector is configured to fully encircle the connector 38, housing optical fiber 40, when fully assembled); and a photonic integrated circuit (Figs. 18, optical module 54’ is a photonics integrated circuit, as the optical module is disclosed to include a photoelectric converter mounted on a substrate, best represented in Fig. 7, optical module 54; see also col. 9, lines 55-60; Fig. 9, optical module 54 is a photonic integrated circuit by the same reasoning) covered by the lid (Figs. 9 and 18 show this) and optically coupled with the optical channel (see Fig. 7 and col. 7, lines 30-32).
Regarding claim 20: Sasaki disclosesA method comprising: coupling a photonic integrated circuit (PIC) with a substrate (see col. 8, lines 23-25, wherein the optical module 54 is considered to be a PIC and the printed wiring board 26 is considered to be a substrate); coupling an optical element with the PIC (see abstract and Fig. 7, optical fiber 20 is an optical element that is coupled with the PIC; see col. 7, lines 30-32); and coupling a lid with the substrate so that an optical feedthrough defined by the lid is aligned with the optical element (see col. 8, lines 34-45, the optical feedthrough being the opening of lid 70 for the optical connector 38), the optical feedthrough being configured to fully encircle an optical channel received therein (see Fig. 10, the optical feedthrough is configured to fully encircle optical connector 38 and optical fiber 40, considered to be an optical channel).
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 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki et al. (US Patent No. 5,960,141; hereinafter Sasaki) in view of Zhou (US Patent No. 6,521,989; hereinafter Zhou).
Regarding claim 13: Sasaki discloses the optical engine of claim 1, wherein the optical feedthrough is one of a plurality of optical feedthroughs defined by the lid, and wherein the plurality of optical feedthroughs of the lid include a first optical feedthrough and a second optical feedthrough defined by a same sidewall of the lid. Zhou, also related to optoelectronic chips (see abstract), teaches a variety of configurations for one or more optical fibers connected to opto-electronic components through one or more optical feedthroughs in a shared lid (see Figs. 1-5 and 22), including a configuration wherein the plurality of optical feedthroughs of the lid include a first optical feedthrough and a second optical feedthrough defined by a same side of the lid (see Fig. 1). In order to connect a better parallelize and connect the optoelectronic components to a plurality of optical channels, 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 Sasaki device such that the optical feedthrough is one of a plurality of optical feedthroughs defined by the lid, and wherein the plurality of optical feedthroughs of the lid include a first optical feedthrough and a second optical feedthrough defined by a same sidewall of the lid, since it was known to connect multiple optical fibers through optical feedthroughs on the same side of a housing/lid.
Regarding claim 14: Sasaki discloses the optical engine of claim 1, wherein the optical feedthrough is one of a plurality of optical feedthroughs defined by the lid, and wherein the plurality of optical feedthroughs of the lid include a first optical feedthrough and a second optical feedthrough, the first optical feedthrough and the second optical feedthrough are defined by different sidewalls of the lid. Zhou, also related to optoelectronic chips (see abstract), teaches a variety of configurations for one or more optical fibers connected to opto-electronic components through one or more optical feedthroughs in a shared lid (see Figs. 1-5 and 22), including a configuration whereinthe plurality of optical feedthroughs of the lid include a first optical feedthrough and a second optical feedthrough, the first optical feedthrough and the second optical feedthrough are defined by different sidewalls of the lid (see Fig. 22). In order to better parallelize and connect the optoelectronic components to a plurality of optical channels, 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 Sasaki device such that the optical feedthrough is one of a plurality of optical feedthroughs defined by the lid, and wherein the plurality of optical feedthroughs of the lid include a first optical feedthrough and a second optical feedthrough, the first optical feedthrough and the second optical feedthrough are defined by different sidewalls of the lid, since it was previously taught by Zhou.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki et al. (US Patent No. 5,960,141; hereinafter Sasaki) in view of Yu et al. (US 2012/0175502; hereinafter Yu).
Sasaki discloses the optical engine of claim 1, as applied above. Sasaki further teaches that the optical engine further comprises a substrate (Figs. 9-10, printed wiring board is a substrate; alternatively, Fig. 18, metal block 138 is a substrate), wherein the PIC is disposed on the substrate and the lid contacts the substrate (Figs. 9-10 show this; alternatively, Figs. 17-18 show this), and wherein the lid has a lid extension extending beyond a forward edge of the substrate (Fig. 10, any amount of the housing 70, including but not limited to the portion extending beyond the forward edge of the printed wiring board 26 can be considered part of the lid extension, as it is extending from a back end of the lid; alternatively, the opening 134 and the epoxy within the opening are considered to be the lid extension; alternatively, 142 and 144 can be considered a lid extension extending beyond a forward edge of the substrate). Sasaki fails to teach that the optical engine further comprises a mechanically transferrable (MT) ferrule integrated into the lid extension and optically coupled with a fiber array unit that is optically coupled with the PIC, the MT ferrule is positioned at least in part within the optical feedthrough. However, Yu, also related to apparatuses for connecting optical fibers to photoelectric conversion units (see abstract), does teach (MT) ferrule integrated at the forward edge of a substrate of such an apparatus, optically coupled with a fiber array unit that is optically coupled with the PIC, the MT ferrule positioned at least partially within an optical feedthrough (see Fig. 9, photoelectric conversion unit 4, MT-Ferrule 5, and receptacle/optical feedthrough 6). Since the general configuration was previously taught by Yu and since MT-ferrules are standard connection components for high density connections with optical fibers, 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 Sasaki device such that the (MT) ferrule integrated at the forward edge of a substrate of such an apparatus, optically coupled with a fiber array unit that is optically coupled with the PIC, the MT ferrule positioned at least partially within an optical feedthrough, in order to provide a higher density of optical fibers to connect to one or more optical modules contained within the lid for better parallelization.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki et al. (US Patent No. 5,960,141; hereinafter Sasaki) in view of Imanbayev et al. (US 2007/0172175; hereinafter Imanbayev).
Sasaki discloses the optical engine of claim 1, as applied above. Sasaki fails to teach that the lid has a coarse alignment feature that includes one or more chamfered edges at the optical feedthrough. Imanbayev, also related to sealed assemblies with optical feedthroughs for optical ferrules (see Abstract), teaches that the ferrules and the feedthroughs should have matching shapes for a tight fit, including rectangular or chamfered shapes (see paragraph 0023). In applications wherein an optical connector with a chamfered shape is to be passed through the optical feedthrough, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the Imanbayev device such that the lid includes one or more chamfered edges at the optical feedthrough, and such an arrangement would be considered a coarse alignment feature, since it would help to align the optical fibers with the optical module contained within the lid.
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