DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to applicant’s amendment filed on January 6, 2026. Claims 1-20 are under consideration.
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, 7, 12-14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krichevsky et al. (US 2022/0404546 A1, herein “Krichevsky”) in view of Schlepple et al. (US 2024/0272370 A1, herein “Schlepple”).
Claim 1. Krichevsky discloses a photonic device assembly (Figs. 1a and 9), comprising:
a first optical device and a second optical device (Fig. 9: 907 contains an array of lasers made of several individual lasers wherein the first laser is the 1st optical device and the 2nd laser is the 2nd optical device in the array 907), both coupled to a surface of a substrate (Figs. 1 and 9: package 100 contains a substrate 103 as shown in Fig. 1a);
an optical fiber (106a) coupled to the substrate (Fig. 1a: 106a sits on mount 101 which is coupled to substrate 103 which acts as the base layer to 100), wherein an end face of the optical fiber (Fig. 1a: 111) has a cross-sectional core area associated with one core of the optical fiber (Fig. 1a: 111);
a first optical waveguide (Fig. 1a: 113) having a first end coupled to the first optical device and a second end coupled to the end face of the optical fiber through a first portion of the cross-sectional core area (Fig. 1a: 111 and Fig. 9: wherein 113 couples 106a to laser array 907 which contains 1st and 2nd optical devices); and
a second optical waveguide (Fig. 9: shows multiple waveguides 113) having a first end coupled to the second optical device (Fig. 9: 1 end of 113 is coupled to 907 which contains 2nd optical device); wherein at least a partial length of the first optical waveguide (113) is suspended above the surface of the substrate (Fig. 1: 1st optical waveguide 113 and substrate 103).
PNG
media_image1.png
598
445
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Krichevsky does not disclose a second optical waveguide having a first end coupled to a second optical device and second end coupled to the end face of the optical fiber through a second portion of the cross-sectional core area; (Krichevsky discloses the waveguides 113 are coupled to individual fibers having only one core), wherein at least a partial length of the first optical waveguide is suspended above the surface of the substrate.
PNG
media_image2.png
469
609
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Schlepple teaches an optical fiber having multiple cores (Fig. 4: 445/446; Para [0031]), the fibers are attached to fiber array units (FAU 410 in Fig. 4 which is similar to 130 shown in Fig. 1) wherein the cores (445/446) are then coupled to a second waveguide (within photonic device(s) 120) which then couples to a PIC. Thus, Schlepple teaches the limitations of “a second end of the waveguide (Fig. 1: 220 within photonic device(s) 120; Para [0030]) coupled to the end face of the optical fiber (Fig. 4: 445/446 Para [0030-0032]) through a second portion of the cross- sectional core area of the optical fiber (Fig. 4: 440n).
PNG
media_image3.png
366
614
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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 input waveguide 106a of Krichevsky to be a multi-core fiber which can then be coupled to waveguides (113) and to a second optical device within the laser array (907). The modification of the fibers 106a to be a multi-cores fiber will enable more inputs to be coupled to PIC to create a high-density system able to handle more connections for scalability purposes. One motivation would be to reduce cost because one fiber 106a can have multiple optical channels instead of a single channel.
Claim 7. Krichevsky discloses the device of claim 1, wherein Krichevsky further discloses the optical fiber comprises a glass core (Para [0040]) having the cross-sectional core area (Fig. 1a: 111); and the first optical waveguide and the second optical waveguide comprise a polymer material (Para [0063]).
Claim 12. Krichevsky discloses the device of claim 1, further comprising: one to sixteen additional optical devices coupled to the substrate (Fig. 9: 907 has at least 4 channels to laser array; Para [0122] indicates there are more than lasers diode on the array 907 coupled to 100 which has a base substrate 103 as shown in Fig. 1a); and one to sixteen additional optical waveguides (Fig. 9: 113 has at least 4 channels of waveguides coupled to laser array 907; Para [0122] indicates there are more than lasers diode on the array 907 coupled to 100 which has a base substrate 103 as shown in Fig. 1a), each of the additional optical waveguides (113) having a first end coupled to a corresponding one of the additional optical devices (113 coupled to optical devices within 907) and a second end coupled to the end face of the optical fiber (113 to 106a) through a corresponding portion of a core area of the optical fiber (113 is coupled to 111 of fiber 106a), and each of the additional optical waveguides are suspended above a surface of the substrate (Fig. 1a: 113 is suspended over 103).
Krichevsky does not teach a second optical waveguide having a first end coupled to a second optical device and second end coupled to the end face of the optical fiber through a second portion of the cross- sectional core area of the optical fiber (since Krichevsky discloses the waveguides 113 are coupled to individual fibers having only one core), wherein at least a partial length of the first optical waveguide is suspended above the surface of the substrate.
Schlepple teaches an optical fiber having multiple cores (Fig. 4: 445/446; Para [0031]), the fibers are attached to FAU unit (Fig. 4: 410 which is similar to 130 shown in Fig. 1) wherein the cores 445-446 are then coupled to a second waveguide in (120) which then couples to a PIC. Thus, teaching the limitations of “a second end of the waveguide (Fig. 1: 220 within 120; Para [0030]) coupled to the end face of the optical fiber (Fig. 4: 445 or 446 Para [0030-0032]) through a second portion of the cross- sectional core area of the optical fiber (Fig. 4: 440n).
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 input waveguide 106a of Krichevsky to be a multi-core fiber which can then be coupled to waveguides 113 and to a second optical device within the laser array 907. The modification of the fibers 106a to be a multi-cores fiber will enable more inputs to be coupled to PIC to create a high-density system able to handle more connections for scalability purposes. One motivation would be to reduce cost because one fiber 106a can have multiple optical channels instead of a single channel.
Claim 13. Krichevsky discloses the device of claim 1, wherein Krichevsky discloses the optical fiber (106a) is one of a plurality of optical fibers coupled the substrate (Fig. 1a: 106a coupled 103), wherein each of the optical fibers (106a) has a cross-sectional core area associated with a core diameter of the corresponding optical fiber (Fig. 1a: core area on 111); and the first (1st device within 907; Para [0122]) and second optical devices (within 907; Para [0122]) are one pair of a plurality of optical device pairs (there are 4 channels going into 907 which means there are 4 laser diodes within 907), each of the optical device pairs coupled to separate portions of the cross-section core area of a corresponding core in one of the optical fibers (907 to 106a via 113 wherein waveguide 113 is coupled to a separate core area on each corresponding fiber).
Claim 14. Krichevsky discloses an optical fiber multiplexing system, comprising: a first fiber array unit (Fig. 9: 101a) comprising first ends of N fibers (Fig. 9: 106a); a first array of M first optical devices (Fig. 9: 907; [0122]), wherein the first optical devices (907) comprise N first optical device groups further comprising two or more first optical devices (Fig. 9: contains 4 channels of waveguides 113 going to 907; [0122]), and wherein each of the first optical devices (within 907) within one of the first optical device groups is coupled to an optical wire (907 is attached to 113) that intersects a portion of a first core at a first end of a corresponding one of the fibers (113 intersects or comes in to contact with the end face of 106a via end face 111 as shown in Fig. 1).
Krichevsky does not explicitly teach wherein the first optical devices comprise N first optical device groups further comprising two or more first optical devices, and wherein each of the first optical devices within one of the first optical device groups is coupled to an optical wire that intersects a portion of a first end of a corresponding one of the fibers.
Krichevsky only teaches the laser diode array (907) having more than one laser diodes (Para [0122]) being coupled to 4 individual fibers channels (106a). The examiner considers having 4 laser diodes to be an obvious modification in view of KSR “obvious to try” rationale because it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the laser diodes array to contain individual laser diodes to each channel wherein the laser diode array has 4 or more total laser diodes in order to isolate the channel to process data simultaneously (KSR, 550 U.S. at 404, 82 USPQ2d at 1391). Having individual laser diodes for the 4 channels will produce a laser array containing 4 laser diodes. The four laser diodes within the array can then be divided into 2 groups of laser diodes with each group having 2 laser diodes.
This modification allows the device to process more independent data sources via inputs/output at an optimum rate by a controller such as processor 1010 shown in Fig. 10.
Claim 16. Krichevsky discloses the device of claim 15, wherein Krichevsky further discloses the device comprising: a second fiber array (Fig. 9: 106b) comprising second ends of the N fibers (Fig. 1a: at 111); a second array of M second optical devices (Fig. 9: photodiodes 908), wherein the second optical devices (908) and wherein each of second optical devices (908) within one of the second optical device groups is coupled to an optical wire (908 is coupled 113b) that intersects a portion of the first core at a second end of a corresponding one of the fibers (113b intersects 106b at 111).
Krichevsky does not teach wherein the optical devices comprise M second optical device groups further comprising two or more second optical devices.
Krichevsky only teaches the photodiode array (908) having more than one photodiode (Para [0123]) being coupled to 4 individual fiber channels (106b). The examiner considers having 4 photodiodes to be an obvious modification in view of KSR “obvious to try” rationale because it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the photodiodes array to contain individual photodiodes to each channel wherein the photodiode array has 4 or more total photodiodes in order to isolate the channel to process data simultaneously (KSR, 550 U.S. at 404, 82 USPQ2d at 1391). Having individual photodiodes for the 4 channels will produce a photodiode array containing 4 photodiodes. The four photodiodes within the array can then be divided into 2 groups of photodiodes with each group having 2 photodiodes.
This modification allows the device to process more independent data source via input/output at an optimum rate by a controller such as element 1010 shown in Fig. 10.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the photodiode array 908 to have individual photodiodes per channel to allow the channel to have independent data streams. This modification allows the device to process more independent data sources simultaneously.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over unpatentable over the Krichevsky in view of Schlepple (herein “Krichevsky/Schlepple”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ashrafi et al. (WO 2016/049502 A1, herein “Ashrafi”).
Regarding claims 2-3, Krichevsky discloses the device of claim 1, wherein Krichevsky discloses substantially all of the length of the first (1st waveguide from the group of waveguides 113) and second (2nd waveguide from the group of waveguides 113) optical waveguides between the optical fiber (106a) and the optical devices (in 907) is spaced apart from the surface of the substrate (Fig. 1a: 113 and 103); the first optical device comprises an emitter (laser diode in 907) to output at a first center wavelength (all lasers device can output a center wavelength) or a photodetector responsive to the first center wavelength; the second optical device comprises (also on 907; Para [0122]) an emitter to output at a second center wavelength or a photodetector responsive to the second center wavelength; and the second center wavelength is different than the first center wavelength by at least 5 nm ([0039] teaches wherein the waveguides maybe operated in the IR band of 1200-1600 nm or near IR Band which is usually around 750-2500nm).
Krichevsky does not explicitly teach that the wavelengths band of the 1st and 2nd to be different by at least 5nm.
However, the waveguides and corresponding laser/photodetector components of the PIC of Krichevsky is designed to work with wireless networks devices (Para [0129]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the laser source of the first and second optical device to have different center wavelengths of at least 5nm and to operate within the band 850 nm – 940 nm in order to differentiate the sources while ensuring the laser sources output light that is capable of being transmitted by the waveguides and fiber due operation restrictions of the IR band (Para [0039]); since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
Further, the device is equipped with a modulator (Para [0122]) which can be used to modify the signal wavelengths of the laser array for signal generation. Thus, the examiner considered the device of Krichevsky is capable of having different center wavelengths during operations due to operation range in the IR band or near IR band (Para [0039]).
Krichevsky/Schlepple do not teach wherein: the first optical device comprises an emitter to output at the first center wavelength; the second optical device comprises an emitter to output at the second center wavelength; and the first center wavelength and the second center wavelength are both within the 850nm - 940nm band.
Ashrafi teaches wherein laser sources may have operational wavelength ranges between 700nm - 10,000nm. Ashrafi indicates that varying bands require different laser sources for different reasons. Ashrafi further indicates bands at 850 nm will require relatively inexpensive laser sources (Para [0153]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the laser source of Krichevsky/Schlepple to use a laser source having a center wavelength band of roughly between 850-940 nm in order to utilize cheaper laser sources which will reduce the cost to manufacture the photonic system (Ashrafi, Para [0153]).
Claims 4-5, 15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over unpatentable over the Krichevsky/Schlepple in view of Ashrafi (herein “Krichevsky/Schlepple/Ashrafi”) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Blumenthal (US 2013/0279115 A1, herein “Blumenthal”).
Regarding claims 4-5, 15, and 17, Krichevsky / Schlepple / Ashrafi teach the device of claim 2, wherein Krichevsky discloses the first optical device is a laser (in 907) that is coupled to a semiconductor photodetector (910 or 911; photodiode which is a semiconductor structure Para [0122]).
Krichevsky / Schlepple / Ashrafi do not teach wherein: the first optical device comprises a semiconductor photodetector responsive to the first center wavelength; the second optical device comprises a semiconductor photodetector responsive to the second center wavelength; and the first center wavelength and the second center wavelengths are within the 850nm - 940nm band.
Blumenthal teaches the first optical device (Fig. 1: 100) comprises a photodetector (Fig. 1: within 104) responsive to the first center wavelength (850-1310nm). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Krichevsky / Schlepple / Ashrafi wherein 1 laser array is made separate from the photodiode (See Fig. 9: 907 and 910) to put individual transmitter laser source with a corresponding photodetector as shown by 100. The modification of separating each photodetector/laser pair into an individual device would allow for the device to be easily repaired if 1 channel goes down. The package can be replaced individually instead of replacing the entire array.
As for the limitation of “the second optical device comprises a semiconductor photodetector responsive to the second center wavelength; and the first center wavelength and the second center wavelengths are within the 850 nm – 940 nm band”. Based on the suggested modification above, by separating each laser source and pair it with a photodetector will also result in the 2nd optical device to have its own transmitter / photodetector package. Blumenthal further discuss that center wavelengths ranges 850-1310 allows for the device to be manufactured at low cost of which the claimed ranges 850-940 falls within the operating band of Blumenthal. It would, therefore, be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Krichevsky / Schlepple / Ashrafi wherein all the lasers are paired with photodetectors in a single package having center wavelength operating range of 850 nm – 940 nm in order to produce the device at low cost while allowing it to be easily repaired if one unit fails.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krichevski / Schlepple / Ashrafi in view of Blumenthal (herein “Krichevski / Schlepple / Ashrafi / Blumenthal” as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Taru et al. (US 2013/0287347 A1, herein “Taru”).
Krichevski / Schlepple / Ashrafi / Blumenthal teach the device of claim 5, but the said combination of teaching is silent to the first portion of the cross-sectional core area is smaller than the second portion of the cross sectional core area.
Taru teaches a multicore fiber (Fig. 1) for suppressing crosstalk. The condition for suppressing crosstalk is that the propagation constant is different between the heterogeneous cores, in particular, the crosstalk can decrease as the propagation constant difference increases. Figs. 9-11 show reduction of crosstalk can be achieved by changing both the core diameter size (Para [0053-0045]). Moreover, it is preferable that the two adjacent cores of the plurality of cores have different diameter (Para [0009]).
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 device of Krichevski / Schlepple / Ashrafi / Blumenthal to employ a multicore fiber wherein the adjacent cores have different diameters as taught by Taru. One would be motivated to use the multicore of Taru’s invention is to suppress crosstalk since it can degrade the optical signals.
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over unpatentable over the Krichevsky / Schlepple and further in view of Taru et al. (US 2013/0287347 A1, herein “Taru”).
In terms of Claim 8-10, Krichevsky / Schlepple teach the device of claim 7. Krichevsky / Schlepple do not teach the core has a core diameter of no more than approximately 62μm; the first portion of the cross-sectional core area has a diameter of no more than 25μm; and the second portion of the cross-sectional core area has a diameter of no more than 25μm; wherein the first optical device is an emitter having an emission aperture of a first diameter, smaller than 25μm and wherein the first end of the first optical waveguide has a diameter larger than the first diameter; wherein the first optical device is an emitter having an emission aperture of a first diameter, smaller than 25μm and wherein the first end of the first optical waveguide has a diameter larger than the first diameter; wherein the first optical device is a photodetector having a collection aperture of a first diameter, smaller than 25μm, and wherein the first end of the first optical waveguide has a diameter smaller than the first diameter.
Krichevsky / Schlepple do not teach the cross-sectional core area is associated with a core diameter of no more than approximately 62 µm, the first portion of the cross-sectional area has a diameter of no more than 25 µm; and the second portion of the cross-sectional area has a diameter of no more than 25 µm.
Taru teaches a multicore fiber (Fig. 1) for suppressing crosstalk. The condition for suppressing crosstalk is that the propagation constant is different between the heterogeneous cores, in particular, the crosstalk can decrease as the propagation constant difference increases. Figs. 9-11 show reduction of crosstalk can be achieved by changing both the core diameter size (Para [0053-0045]). Moreover, it is preferable that the two adjacent cores of the plurality of cores have different diameter (Para [0009]).
Krichevsky / Schlepple in view of Taru do not explicitly teach the dimensions of the cross-section core area of no more than 62 µm; and the first portion of the cross-sectional core area of the optical fiber has a diameter of no more than 25 µm; and the second portion of the cross-sectional core area of the optical fiber has a diameter of no more than 25 µm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize the core diameter difference between two adjacent cores to prevent crosstalk, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
As for the limitation of
“wherein the first optical device is an emitter having an emission aperture of a first diameter, smaller than 25μm and wherein the first end of the first optical waveguide has a diameter larger than the first diameter (Claim 9);”
“wherein the first optical device is a photodetector having a collection aperture of a first diameter, smaller than 25 μm and wherein the first end of the first optical waveguide has a diameter smaller than the first diameter (Claim 10)”,
the examiner considers these parameters for the optical device emitters (laser diode within 907 of Krichevsky) to be an obvious modification. It would be obvious in order to optimize optical coupling between the cores on the fiber, the 1st and 2nd end of the 1st and 2nd optical waveguide relative to the optical device arrays (907) for the purpose optimizing the coupling efficiency between the fiber, waveguide an optical devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the diameters of connecting waveguide 113 and the emitting aperture of the laser diode array, collecting aperture of the photodetector to be within the ranges above relative to the core size of as discussed by Taru above in order to optimize optical coupling. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over unpatentable over the Krichevsky / Schlepple in further view of Taru (herein “Krichevsky / Schlepple / Taru”) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Soldano et al. (US 2021/0356519 A1, herein “Soldano”.
Krichevsky / Schlepple / Taru teach the device of claim 8, but the said combination do not teach the first optical device is a photodetector comprising a wavelength filter.
Soldano teaches an optoelectronic circuitry measuring optical wavelengths applications, a wavelength bandwidth filter is coupled in series with a photodetector to allow only specific wavelengths of light to pass to the photodiode (Para [0154]).
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 device of Krichevsky / Schlepple / Taru to include a wavelength filter to the photodetector for filtering out noise. One motivation is to remove noise frequencies that are outside of the desired signal’s frequency range.
Claims 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over unpatentable over the Krichevsky in view of Watte et al. (US 2023/0098658 A1, herein “Watte”).
In terms of Claim 18, Krichevsky discloses a method comprising:
attaching an optical fiber (Fig. 1: 106a) to a substrate (103);
attaching two or more optical devices to the substrate (Fig. 9: 907 to 100 wherein the base substrate of 100 is 103 as shown in Fig. 1);
forming within free space, a first optical waveguide (Fig. 1: 113) spanning a first distance between a first of the optical devices (Fig. 9: 907 teaches a laser diode array having multiple laser diodes; [0122]) and a first portion of an end of a core of the optical fiber (Fig. 1: 113 from 111 to 907 as shown in Fig. 9); and
forming, within free space, a second optical waveguide spanning a second distance between a second of the optical devices to a second portion of the end of the optical fiber (Fig. 9: there are 4 waveguides at 113 which are coupled to different channels on 907).
Krichevsky does not teach printing, within free space, an optical waveguide spanning a first distance between a first of the optical devices to a first portion of an end of the optical fiber.
Watte teaches multiple fiber connectivity having 3D printed tapered fiber tips wherein Watte teaches printing, within free space, an optical waveguide (Fig. 1: 112; [0047]) spanning a first distance between a first of the optical devices (Fig. 1: 118) to a first portion of an end of the optical fiber (Fig. 1: 104 at 108).
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 method of making the waveguide 113 to use 3D printing process since printing process can form waveguides with precise coupling alignment ([Para 0066] and [0071]). One motivation for printing the coupling connector is to avoid active alignment process, which can be time consuming for multicore connections.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krichevsky in view of Watte (herein “Krichevsky / Watte”) as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Wood et al. (US 11,726,276 B1, herein “Wood”.
In terms of Claim 19-20, Krichevsky / Watte teach the method of Claim 18, wherein Krichevsky discloses attaching the optical fiber core (Fig. 1a: within 106a) to the substrate (Fig. 1a: 103), attaching the optical devices (Fig. 9: within 907) to the substrate (Fig. 9: 100 wherein the base of 100 is 103 as shown in Fig. 1a): wherein 1st and 2nd waveguide (113) are formed to couple fiber cores to the optical device (106a, 907 and 113).
Krichevsky does not teach and printing 1st and 2nd optical waveguide comprises extruding a polymerizing precursor from a print head as the print head traverses a distance between each of the optical devices and the corresponding portions of the end of the optical fiber.
Watte does teach printing optical waveguide comprises extruding a polymerizing precursor (Fig. 9: at 912; Para [0073]) from a print head (Watte does not explicitly mention the use of a print head but does indicate 912 is in a liquid form so it must be dispensed from some form of a dispenser. The dispenser is considered by the examiner as a print heat) as the print head traverses a distance between each of the optical devices and the corresponding portions of the end of the optical fiber (Watte wherein the dimension of 112 takes various geometries as shown Fig. 3a-d and 16a-b over the end face of the fiber 902 as shown in Fig. 9). The print head must be move to different distances along x-y-z direction (Para [0073]) in order to form the 3D waveguide 112 which is intended to couple to optical device 118 (Para [0043]). 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 method of making the waveguide 113 to use printing process since printing process can form waveguides with precise coupling alignment (Para [0066] and [0071]).
Krichevsky / Watte do not teach the method comprises attaching a first vertical-cavity surface- emitting laser (VCSEL) and attaching a second VCSEL.
Wood teaches an optical chip wherein the laser array is made from two VCSEL laser sources (Fig. 9: 1204), wherein 1st and 2nd VCSEL 1204 are capable of having the functions of having 1st and 2nd center frequency (functionality of VCSEL lasers). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the laser diodes array of Krichevsky to be VCSEL laser source. VCSEL laser sources are known to be inexpensive while have good performance characteristics.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on January 6, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues regarding claim 1, that the combination of Krichevsky in view of Schlepple is non-obvious because Schlepples multi-core fiber would have “no to more specifically couple two optical waveguides to first and second portions of a cross-sectional core area of a particular one of those multiple fiber cores (Remarks page 8).
The examiner disagrees. Krichevsky in view of Schlepple inventions are compatible for modification. Krichevsky teaches “wire-bonding” optical “wire” for making chip-to-chip optical interfaces. Schlepple teaches coupling optical channel/fiber counts to PIC or photonic device for scaling higher optical bandwidth applications (Para [0013]). Schlepple teaches fiber array unit (FAU) 410 are formed to align multi cores 445a-445n to waveguide 220 “while accounting for variation in the number of cores and the outer diameter of the various connected fibers” (Para [0030]). Further, “[i]n some examples, the fibers 440 may include a subset of fibers that are MCFs. For example, the fiber 440n is an MCF with cores 445n and 446. The cores 446 may positioned to also couple to additional waveguides in the PIC 120.” Therefore, the examiner considers the teaching of Schlepple utilizing multicore fibers for coupling to waveguides on PIC 120 for increasing the number channels while maintaining the same FAU width for coupling to PIC 120 that have limited real estate would be compatible and applicable to the chip-to-chip wire boding optical interfaces of Krichevsky. By increasing the number of cores within the same outer diameter of the fiber (440n), Schlepple is able to increase the bandwidth without increasing the size of the individual fiber.
Regarding the argument to the rejection of claim 6, applicant argues Taru only teaches “separate cores of a multi-core fiber may have different cross-sectional areas” and claim 6 is distinct from Taru because “claim 6 specifies the first and second portions of the cross-sectional core area of one core are different.
Claim 6 as amended and duplicated below:
The photonic device assembly of claim 5, wherein the first portion of the cross-sectional core area is smaller than the second portion of the cross-sectional core area.
The examiner considers the core area to be the inner portion that encompasses all the multiple cores as shown in Figs. 1-2 of Taru. Therefore, core 101 is a type A core with diameter of 8.5 micrometer and cores 102, 105, and 107 are type B with a diameter of 8.1 micrometer, and type C cores have diameter of 8.9 micrometer. Therefore, the first portion of the cross-sectional core area (type B core) is smaller than the second portion of the cross-sectional core area (type A core) – type B and type A core are all within the core area.
Regarding the arguments to rejections having tertiary art not curing the deficiencies of the independent claims – the examiner consider these arguments not persuasive because the tertiary art(s) are applied to the teach the limitations of the independent claims, but the tertiary art(s) are applied to teach the respective dependent claims.
For the reasons above, the examiner maintains the grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Erin D Chiem whose telephone number is (571)272-3102. The examiner can normally be reached 10 am - 6 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.
/ERIN D CHIEM/Examiner, Art Unit 2874
/THOMAS A HOLLWEG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights