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 .
Detailed Action
Information Disclosure Statement
The prior art documents submitted by Applicant(s) in the information Disclosure Statement(s) have all been considered and made of record (note the attached copy of form(s) PTO-1449).
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant(s) regard as their invention.
Claim 3 is indefinite for reciting ‘wherein the optical signal arriving from any direction parallel to the first side of the circuit board is collected by the lens system and transmitted to the at least one optical fiber’ as it is not clear as how the “lens system” being able to collect transmitted signals arriving from any direction parallel to the first side of the circuit board and transmit to the optical fiber? Such broad scope of the claim needs to be appropriately clarified.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
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 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.
Claims 1-2 and 4-5 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over “Badhei” et al., US 20060022289 A1, and further in view of Novotny, US 6950570 B1.
Regarding claim 1, Badhei teaches circuit board (shown in figs. 1-8 and see at least Parag. 0305, 0377), comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
379
509
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
499
525
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
276
574
media_image3.png
Greyscale
a. a first side and an opposite second side (clearly shown in at least figs. 1-8);
b. at least one optical fiber 316 for transmitting an optical signal, the at least one optical fiber (optically) extending in the circuit board between the first and second sides (clearly shown in at least figs. 1-8, and 68;
c. a recess in the circuit board, the recess extending from the first side toward the second side at least to the at least one optical fiber (clearly shown in at least figs.8, ); and
d. a lens system disposed in the recess such that the optical signal is transmittable between the at least one optical fiber and a beam path parallel to the first side outside of the circuit board (see at least fig. 7-8 in which the “double lens” is made of glass, parag. 0167), wherein e. the lens system includes a double lens and is made in one piece board (see at least fig. 7-8 in which the “double lens” is made of glass, parag. 0167). from a plastic material .
With regard to limitation b, though Badhei does not explicitly teach that the optical “fiber extend” [directly] between the first and second sides, nonetheless, Badhei teaches that the path of the light beam from the optical fiber extends through a via that can be filled with refract index matching to that of the optical fiber: see parag. 0317:
filling the opening 4246 with transparent optical adhesive 4250, such as OG 146, manufactured by Epoxy Technology, 14 Fortune Drive, Billerica, Mass. 01821, USA, whose refractive index preferably is precisely matched to that of cores 4262 of the optical fibers 4256
and thus it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary artisan in the art when the invention was made to dispose optical fiber in the via than filling it with the same material as it may be cost effective and convenient rather than the step of filling the material into the via.
With regard to limitation C, Badhei does not teach that the double lens is made of plastic. In the same filed of invention such conventional limitation is taught by Novotny who states that the “lens array” material can be made from a different suitable material (see col. 24, lines 39-56) including plastic (see col. 25, last parag.). Thus it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary artisan in the art when the invention was made to modify Badhei lens system material with conventional material that is plastic taught by Novotny in order to produce an optical system on the circuit board with reduced reflection and insertion loss (see col. 25, last parag.).
The statements advanced in rejection of claim 1, above, as to the applicability and disclosure of the combined references and the motivation are incorporated herein in rejection of the following claims as follows:
2. The circuit board according to claim 1, wherein the lens system does not use any mirrors or other optical components (shown in at least fig. 8b or 71b, the lens with no other component).
4. The circuit board as recited in claim 1, wherein the recess includes a bore (shown in at least fig. (8 and 69).
5. The circuit board as recited in claim 1, wherein the lens system is form-fittingly disposed in the recess (shown in at least fig. 7).
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
Prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. In accordance with MPEP 707.05 the following references are pertinent in rejection of this application since they provide substantially the same information disclosure as this patent does. These references are:
US 20030118294 A1
US 20080240659 A1
US 20070081770 A1
US 9995889 B2
US 4995695 A
US 7440646 B2
US 9739962 B2
US 10481336 B2
US 9529155 B2
US 20060022289 A1
US 20150117824 A1
US 20150253520 A1
US 20050069261 A1
US 20030206703 A1
US 6751369 B1
US 7110630 B2
US 9323004 B2
US 11169446 B2
US 6950570 B1
US 11921334 B2
US 7542638 B2
CN 1646960 A
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAVEH C KIANNI whose telephone number is (571)272-2417. The examiner can normally be reached on 9-19.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Thomas Hollweg can be reached on571-270-1739. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KAVEH C KIANNI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874