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 .
Specification
Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become
aware in the specification.
Inventorship
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims
the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the
effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is
advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of
each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in
order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35
U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed July 29, 2026 has been fully considered and entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-3 and 17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claims 1-3, 24-25, and 32-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Dobbelaere et al. (US-20060239612-A1), hereafter De Dobbelaere, and in view of Caer et al. (US-9793682-B2), hereafter Caer.
Regarding claim 1, De Dobbelaere teaches or suggests an optoelectronic structure (FIG. 9), comprising: a first optical component (Photonic integrated circuit chip 904); and a second optical component (laser die 902) supported by the first optical component (FIG. 9) and optically coupled to the first optical component (Par. [0054]); and a lens structure (Microlens array 934) disposed between the second optical component and the first optical component (FIG. 9), the lens structure being configured to couple an optical signal from the second optical component to the first optical component (Par. [0054]) . De Dobbelaere fails to disclose a carrier to support the first optical component.
Caer teaches a carrier (FIG. 1. Substrate 2).
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of DeDobbelaere by providing a carrier to support the first optical component as taught by Caer. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that Photonic Integrated Circuit (PIC) chips, such as chip 904 in De Dobbelaere, require a reliable physical foundation for structural reinforcement, handling, and integration into larger systems. Caer explicitly teaches utilizing a substrate (Substrate 2) as a structural carrier to support optical components. Integrating Caer’s carrier/substrate with De Dobbelaere's optoelectronic assembly would yield predictable results. Specifically, providing a carrier beneath De Dobbelaere's photonic integrated circuit chip 904 would provide mechanical stability, protect the fragile chip assembly from mechanical stress, and facilitate robust external electrical and thermal connections. This modification relies on a predictable combination of prior art elements according to their established functions, achieving the predictable result of an optoelectronic structure with enhanced mechanical and structural integrity.
Regarding claim 2, De Dobbelaere/ Caer teaches or suggests the device of claim 1. De Dobbelaere further teaches or suggests the first optical component (Photonic integrate Circuit Chip 904) comprises an optical receiving area (optical coupler 910 in the PIC 904. Par. [0054]) exposed by the second optical component (laser die 902), the optical receiving area being horizontally and vertically non-overlapping with the lens structure (FIG. 9).
Regarding claim 3, De Dobbelaere/ Caer teaches or suggests the device of claim 1. De Dobbelaere further teaches or suggests the first optical component (Photonic integrate Circuit Chip 904) comprises a photonic integrated circuit (PIC) including a waveguide (Waveguide structure 908), the waveguide being horizontally and vertically non-overlapping with the lens structure (FIG. 9).
Regarding claim 24, De Dobbelaere/ Caer teaches or suggests the device of claim 1. De Dobbelaere further teaches or suggests a prism shaped optical guiding element (deflecting mirror 936) disposed over the first optical component (photonic integrate circuit chip 904) and configured to guide an optical signal (laser beam 903) to the first optical component (Par: [0054]).
Regarding claim 25, De Dobbelaere/ Caer teaches or suggests the device of claim 25. De Dobbelaere further teaches or suggests the prism shaped optical guiding element (deflecting mirror 936) overlaps an optical receiving area (optical coupler 910) of the first optical component (FIG. 9).
Regarding claim 32, De Dobbelaere/ Caer teaches or suggests the device of claim 1. De Dobbelaere further teaches or suggests the lens structure (lens array 934) is separated from the first optical component (Photonic integrated circuit chip 904) and supported by the second optical component (laser die 902. FIG. 9).
Regarding claim 33, De Dobbelaere/ Caer teaches or suggests the device of claim 33. De Dobbelaere further teaches or suggests the lens structure (lens array 934) is separated from a prism shaped optical guiding element (deflecting mirror 936) of the optoelectronic structure (FIG. 9).
Claims 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Dobbelaere et al. (US-20060239612-A1), hereafter De Dobbelaere in view of Caer et al. (US-9793682-B2), hereafter Caer, as applied to claim 1, and in further view of Doany et al (US9568679B2), hereafter Doany.
Regarding claim 21, De Dobbelaere/ Caer teaches or suggests the device of claim 1. De Dobbelaere further teaches or suggests, the lens structure further comprises a lens and a supporting plate connected to the lens, wherein the lens is horizontally overlapped with a lateral surface of the second optical component and vertically non-overlapped with the upper surface of the second optical component (FIG. 9). Dobbelaere fails to teach the supporting plate connected to an upper surface of the second optical component.
Doany teaches the lens structure (FIG. 1. Lens array coupling element) further comprises a lens (lens array 102) and a supporting plate (overhang 104) connected to the lens (FIG. 1) and an upper surface of the second optical component (Photonic Chip 200. FIG. 2).
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of De Dobbelaere/Caer with the lens plate of Doany. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these teachings to provide an integrated, mechanical support structure for the lens array that mounts directly onto the upper surface of the underlying photonic chip. This combination utilizes familiar optical alignment and mechanical attachment techniques to yield a predictable structural result: improving the structural stability, alignment precision, and mechanical robustness of the optical interface without shifting the horizontal positioning of the optical paths taught by De Dobbelaere. As such, the modification represents nothing more than the predictable combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
PNG
media_image1.png
624
970
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 22, De Dobbelaere/ Caer/ Doany teaches or suggests the device of claim 21. De Dobbelaere and Caer fail to disclose the supporting plate overhangs the upper surface of the second optical component and is at an elevation higher than that of the lens with respect to the first optical component.
Doany teaches or suggest the supporting plate (Overhang 104) overhangs the upper surface (top surface 208) of the optical component (photonic chip 200) and is at an elevation higher than that of the lens (FIG.1).
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device lens plate of De Dobbelaere with the lens plate of Doany. Elevating the plate relative to the lens allows the lens itself to be positioned at the precise, precise focal distance required to couple light efficiently between the first and second optical components, without being structurally limited by the thickness of the supporting plate. Modifying De Dobbelaere’s lens plate utilizing Doany's overhanging, elevated configuration combines known prior art elements according to their established functions (using an elevated structural overhang to clear adjacent components) to yield a predictable.
Regarding claim 23, De Dobbelaere/ Caer/ Doany teaches or suggests the device of claim 21. De Dobbelaere further teaches or suggests in a direction perpendicular to the lateral surface of the second optical component (laser die 902), a first distance between the supporting plate and a prism (deflecting mirror 936) of the optoelectronic structure is less than a second distance between the lens and the prism (see annotated FIG. 9 above).
Claims 26-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Dobbelaere et al. (US-20060239612-A1), hereafter De Dobbelaere, and in view of Caer et al. (US-9793682-B2), hereafter Caer, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Venkatesan (US11686906B1).
Regarding claim 26, De Dobbelaere/ Caer teach or suggest the device of claim 1. De Dobbelaere/ Caer fails to teach or suggest a light source adhered to a first bottom of a first cavity of the second optical component; and an optical amplifier adhered to a second bottom of a second cavity of the second optical component, wherein the first bottom and the second bottom are recessed from an upper surface of the second optical component.
Venkatesan teaches a light source (optical device 1512: Column 56 lines 47-50: Optical devices 1512 are for example lasers) adhered to (mounted/attached to) a first bottom (surface of the z-pillars) of a first cavity (cavity 1548) of the optical component (FIG. 15C. Column 56 lines 64-67: Mounted to z-pillars in cavities 1548);
and an optical amplifier (optical device 1520. Column 20 lines 34-38: defines an optical device as a device that has an optical feature that sends, receives, reflects, transmits, focuses, alters, amplifies…) adhered to (mounted/attached to) a second bottom of a second cavity (cavity 1548) of the optical component, wherein the first bottom and the second bottom are recessed from an upper surface of the second optical component (FIG. 15C. Column 56 lines 64-67).
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of De Dobbelaere with a light source and amplifier in the recessed portion of the second optical component. Utilizing recessed cavities within the optical component allows the light source and the optical amplifier to be nested below the upper surface plane. This minimizes the vertical profile (Z-height) of the combined laser assembly, directly facilitating the compact, low-profile edge-coupling configuration demanded by De Dobbelaere's photonic integrated circuit chip 904. Adhering the light source and optical amplifier directly to the recessed bottoms of distinct cavities provides rigid, planar reference surfaces. This structural anchoring mitigates thermal and mechanical shifting, ensuring that the light generated by the source is reliably directed into the amplifier and subsequently edge-coupled into the silicon photonic chip without loss of alignment. The combination of these teachings yields nothing more than the predictable application of Venkatesan’s recessed cavity packaging techniques to De Dobbelaere’s device to achieve the predictable result of a more robust, compact, and thermally stable integrated optical source.
Regarding claim 27, De Dobbelaere/ Caer teach or suggest the device of claim 26. De Dobbelaere/ Caer fail to teach or suggest the second optical component further comprises a waveguide adjacent to the upper surface of the second optical component, and wherein the optical amplifier is passively aligned with the waveguide.
Venkatesan teaches or suggests the optical component comprises a waveguide (waveguide 1544) adjacent to the upper surface of the optical component (substrate 1500. FIG. 15C), and wherein the optical amplifier (optical device 1520) is passively aligned with the waveguide.
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of De Dobbelaere with the waveguide and alignment of the amplifier and the waveguide of Venkatesan. Integrating a waveguide adjacent to the upper surface of an optical component, as taught by Venkatesan, allows for a highly controlled and localized optical path. This minimizes propagation losses when transferring light between the optical amplifier and adjacent optical components. Utilizing Venkatesan’s passive alignment techniques eliminates the need for time-consuming and expensive active alignment steps (which require powering up devices during assembly). This predictably lowers production costs and increases manufacturing throughput. Incorporating a waveguide that is misaligned with the first and second bottoms enables greater architectural freedom. It allows designers to route optical signals along specialized planes or paths that are decoupled from the strict geometric constraints of the device's lower alignment features or mounting surfaces. The modification represents nothing more than the predictable combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. A person of ordinary skill in the art looking to improve the integration and alignment precision of De Dobbelaere's optical assembly would naturally look to Venkatesan's specialized waveguide placement.
Regarding claim 28, De Dobbelaere/ Caer teach or suggest the device of claim 26. De Dobbelaere/ Caer fail to teach or suggest the light source and the optical amplifier protrude from the upper surface of the second optical component.
Venkatesan teaches or suggests the light source (optical device 1512) and the optical amplifier (optical device 1520) protrude from the upper surface of the second optical component (Cavity 1548. FIG. 15C).
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of De Dobbelaere with the teaching of Venkatesan to configure the spatial arrangement of the optical elements. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to position the upper surfaces of the light source and the optical amplifier higher than the upper surface of the second optical component with respect to the first bottom (as taught by Cavity 1548 of Venkatesan's Figure 15C) in order to optimize vertical alignment, maximize optical coupling efficiency between the devices, and accommodate variations in component thicknesses within a compact, integrated photonic framework. The combination relies on nothing more than the predictable arrangement of known optical components according to known packaging techniques to achieve a predictable structural layout.
Claims 29 - 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Dobbelaere et al. (US-20060239612-A1), hereafter De Dobbelaere, and in view of Caer et al. (US-9793682-B2), hereafter Caer, in further view of Venkatesan (US11686906B1), and in further view of Cheng (US20130051729A1), hereafter Cheng.
Regarding claim 29, De Dobbelaere/ Caer/ Venkatesan teach or suggest the device of claim 26. De Dobbelaere/ Caer/ Venkatesan fail to teach or suggest the first optical component comprises a reflective layer disposed on a first sidewall of the first optical component and an optical isolator disposed on a second sidewall of the first optical component, wherein the second sidewall is inclined with respect to the first sidewall, and wherein the reflective layer and the optical isolator of the first optical component are horizontally and vertically non-overlapping with the second optical component.
Cheng teaches or suggest the first optical component (substrate 110) comprises a reflective layer (mirror-coating layer 210) disposed on a first sidewall of the first optical component and an optical isolator (antireflective coating layer 240) disposed on a second sidewall of the first optical component, wherein the second sidewall is inclined with respect to the first sidewall, and wherein the reflective layer and the optical isolator of the first optical component are horizontally and vertically non-overlapping with the second optical component (FIG. 2).
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the optical receiving area of De Dobbelaere with that of Cheng. Integrating this specific structural arrangement into the first optical component of De Dobbelaere allows for precise directional control of the optical signal while preventing unwanted back-reflections or signal degradation. Configuring the reflective layer and the optical isolator to be horizontally and vertically non-overlapping with the second optical component, as taught by Cheng, ensures a compact, non-interfering spatial layout. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that this specific geometric arrangement minimizes cross-talk and physical interference between adjacent optical components, directly optimizing the device's overall integration density and performance. The modification represents a predictable combination of prior art elements according to known methods to achieve the expected benefit of enhanced optical isolation and efficient signal routing without producing any unexpected results.
Regarding claim 30, De Dobbelaere/ Caer/ Venkatesan/Cheng teach or suggest the device of claim 29. De Dobbelaere/ Caer/ Venkatesan fails to teach or suggest the first and second sidewalls are defined by lattice planes or crystallographic planes of a crystal structure of the first optical component.
Cheng teaches or suggests the first and second sidewalls are defined by lattice planes or crystallographic planes of a crystal structure of the first optical component (Par: [0022]).
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the receiving area of De Dobbelaere with the that of Cheng since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 31, De Dobbelaere/ Caer/ Venkatesan/ Cheng teach or suggest the device of claim 29. De Dobbelaere/ Caer/ Venkatesan fails to teach or suggest the first optical component comprises a waveguide extending in a direction substantially perpendicular to the optical isolator.
Cheng further teaches or suggests the first optical component comprises a waveguide (waveguide core 220) extending in a direction substantially perpendicular to the optical isolator (antireflective coating layer 240).
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the first optical component of De Dobbelaere with the optical isolator and waveguide of Cheng in order to it would streamline the optical alignment and improve the coupling efficiency between the waveguide and the optical components within a compact, integrated photonic system. The perpendicular orientation optimizes the spatial layout, allowing the optical isolator to effectively block unwanted back-reflections from entering the source without unnecessarily increasing the device's footprint. Utilizing a waveguide as the first optical component aligns with standard silicon photonics and optoelectronic integration trends. It enables the fabrication of a more robust, chip-scale optical assembly where multiple passive and active elements can be aligned deterministically on a common substrate. Modifying De Dobbelaere's device to include Cheng's perpendicular waveguide and isolator configuration uses known optical elements for their established functions (guiding light and preventing back-reflection) to achieve a predictable, high-performance optical package.
Claims 17 and 34-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Dobbelaere et al. (US-20060239612-A1), hereafter De Dobbelaere, and in view of Venkatesan (US11686906B1).
Regarding claim 17, De Dobbelaere teaches or suggest an optoelectronic structure (FIG. 9), comprising:
a first optical component (Photonic integrated circuit chip 904); and a second optical component (laser die 902) overlapped with the first optical component (FIG. 9), wherein the first optical component is configured to edge couple an optical signal from the second optical component, the second optical component (Par. [0054]).
De Dobbelaere fails to teach or suggest a light source adhered to a first bottom of a first cavity of the second optical component; and an optical amplifier adhered to a second bottom of a second cavity of the second optical component, wherein the first bottom and the second bottom are recessed from an upper surface of the second optical component.
Venkatesan teaches a light source (optical device 1512: Column 56 lines 47-50: Optical devices 1512 are for example lasers) adhered to (mounted/attached to) a first bottom of a first cavity (cavity 1548) of the optical component (FIG. 15C. Column 56 lines 64-67);
and an optical amplifier (optical device 1520. Column 20 lines 34-38: defines an optical device as a device that has an optical feature that sends, receives, reflects, transmits, focuses, alters, amplifies…) adhered to (mounted/attached to) a second bottom of a second cavity (cavity 1548) of the optical component, wherein the first bottom and the second bottom are recessed from an upper surface of the second optical component (FIG. 15C. Column 56 lines 64-67).
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of De Dobbelaere with a light source and amplifier in the recessed portion of the second optical component. Utilizing recessed cavities within the optical component allows the light source and the optical amplifier to be nested below the upper surface plane. This minimizes the vertical profile (Z-height) of the combined laser assembly, directly facilitating the compact, low-profile edge-coupling configuration demanded by De Dobbelaere's photonic integrated circuit chip 904. Adhering the light source and optical amplifier directly to the recessed bottoms of distinct cavities provides rigid, planar reference surfaces. This structural anchoring mitigates thermal and mechanical shifting, ensuring that the light generated by the source is reliably directed into the amplifier and subsequently edge-coupled into the silicon photonic chip without loss of alignment. The combination of these teachings yields nothing more than the predictable application of Venkatesan’s recessed cavity packaging techniques to De Dobbelaere’s device to achieve the predictable result of a more robust, compact, and thermally stable integrated optical source.
Regarding claim 34, De Dobbelaere/ Venkatesan teaches or suggests the device of claim 17but fails to teach or suggest the second optical component further comprises a waveguide adjacent to the upper surface of the second optical component, and wherein the optical amplifier is passively aligned with the waveguide, the waveguide being misaligned with the first bottom and the second bottom.
Venkatesan teaches or suggests the optical component comprises a waveguide (waveguide 1544) adjacent to the upper surface of the optical component (substrate 1500. FIG. 15C), and wherein the optical amplifier (optical device 1520) is passively aligned with the waveguide, the waveguide being misaligned with the first bottom and the second bottom (Cavity 1548. FIG. 15C).
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of De Dobbelaere with the waveguide and alignment of the amplifier and the waveguide of Venkatesan. Integrating a waveguide adjacent to the upper surface of an optical component, as taught by Venkatesan, allows for a highly controlled and localized optical path. This minimizes propagation losses when transferring light between the optical amplifier and adjacent optical components. Utilizing Venkatesan’s passive alignment techniques eliminates the need for time-consuming and expensive active alignment steps (which require powering up devices during assembly). This predictably lowers production costs and increases manufacturing throughput. Incorporating a waveguide that is misaligned with the first and second bottoms enables greater architectural freedom. It allows designers to route optical signals along specialized planes or paths that are decoupled from the strict geometric constraints of the device's lower alignment features or mounting surfaces. The modification represents nothing more than the predictable combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. A person of ordinary skill in the art looking to improve the integration and alignment precision of De Dobbelaere's optical assembly would naturally look to Venkatesan's specialized waveguide placement.
Regarding claim 35, De Dobbelaere/ Venkatesan teaches or suggests the device of claim 17. De Dobbelaere fails to teach or suggest an upper surface of the light source and an upper surface of the optical amplifier are higher than the upper surface of the second optical component with respect to the first bottom.
Venkatesan teaches or suggests an upper surface of the light source (optical device 1512) and an upper surface of the optical amplifier (optical device 1520) are higher than the upper surface of the second optical component with respect to the first bottom (Cavity 1548. FIG. 15C).
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of De Dobbelaere with the teaching of Venkatesan to configure the spatial arrangement of the optical elements. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to position the upper surfaces of the light source and the optical amplifier higher than the upper surface of the second optical component with respect to the first bottom (as taught by Cavity 1548 of Venkatesan's Figure 15C) in order to optimize vertical alignment, maximize optical coupling efficiency between the devices, and accommodate variations in component thicknesses within a compact, integrated photonic framework. The combination relies on nothing more than the predictable arrangement of known optical components according to known packaging techniques to achieve a predictable structural layout.
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Dobbelaere et al. (US-20060239612-A1), hereafter De Dobbelaere, in view of Venkatesan (US11686906B1), and in further view of Cheng et al. (US 20130051729 A1), hereafter Cheng.
Regarding claim 36, De Dobbelaere/ Venkatesan teaches or suggests the device 17. De Dobbelaere teaches or suggests a lens structure (microlens array 934) positioned between the second optical component (laser die 902) and the first optical component (Photonic integrated circuit chip 904) , the lens structure being configured to transfer an optical signal from the second optical component to the first optical component (Par: [0054]) . De Dobbelaere fails to teach or suggest the first optical component includes a reflective layer arranged on a first sidewall of the first optical component and an optical isolator arranged on a second sidewall of the first optical component, wherein the second sidewall is angled relative to the first sidewall, and wherein the reflective layer and the optical isolator of the first optical component are arranged so as not to overlap horizontally or vertically with the second optical component.
Cheng teaches or suggests the first optical component includes a reflective layer (mirror-coating layer 210) arranged on a first sidewall of the first optical component and an optical isolator (antireflective coating layer 240) arranged on a second sidewall of the first optical component, wherein the second sidewall is angled relative to the first sidewall, and wherein the reflective layer and the optical isolator of the first optical component are arranged so as not to overlap horizontally or vertically with the second optical component (FIG. 2).
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the optical receiving area of De Dobbelaere with that of Cheng. Integrating this specific structural arrangement into the first optical component of De Dobbelaere allows for precise directional control of the optical signal while preventing unwanted back-reflections or signal degradation. Configuring the reflective layer and the optical isolator to be horizontally and vertically non-overlapping with the second optical component, as taught by Cheng, ensures a compact, non-interfering spatial layout. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that this specific geometric arrangement minimizes cross-talk and physical interference between adjacent optical components, directly optimizing the device's overall integration density and performance. The modification represents a predictable combination of prior art elements according to known methods to achieve the expected benefit of enhanced optical isolation and efficient signal routing without producing any unexpected results.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Liu et al. (US-20240192453-A1) see entire disclosure
Palen et al. (WO-2006088859-A2) see entire disclosure
Wu et al. (CN-106468809-B) see entire disclosure
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 TAJANAE N GREEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2188. The examiner can normally be reached Tues-Fri. 5:30a-3:30p.
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, Uyen-Chau Le can be reached at (571) 272-2397. 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.
/TAJANAE NICOLE GREEN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2874
/UYEN CHAU N LE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights