DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding independent claims 1, 18, applicant’s argument essentially boils down to that Brunner fails to teach a photonic via with distinct angled reflectors configured to redirect signals into and out of the via. Applicant’s position appears to be that the angled reflectors must be distinct and/or separate components from the photonic via, while Brunner teaches a “unitary” structure.
The examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant’s interpretation of claims as amended and of Brunner’s invention. Firstly, there is no recitation in the claims that require the photonic via and the angled reflectors to be distinct and/or separate components, only that they are all parts of a photonic device. As an analogy, an optical waveguide may consist of multiple and distinct core and cladding layers that are integrated as a single device of one-piece construction. Secondly, Brunner in fact makes it clear that the photonic via (block 302) and the angled reflectors (first and second prisms 300, 304) are distinct parts, and, during a process of making, the first and second prisms adjoin two opposite ends of the block (302). That is, the prisms are subsequently added or attached to the block and they not manufactured concurrently and unitarily/monolithically with the block as applicant has alleged.
The remaining arguments are based on the assumption that claims 1, 18 would be allowable and therefore also not persuasive.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 10, 12-14, 17, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. PGPub 2015/0078712 A1 by Brunner et al.
Regarding claim 1, Brunner teaches a photonic device (Fig. 2), comprising: a first photonic interconnect (first section 116) formed along a first direction (parallel to the direction of alignment structures 114) over a first horizontal plane; a second photonic interconnect (not identified in Fig. 2 but shown as 116” in Fig. 4) formed along a second direction (perpendicular to the direction of the alignment structures 114) over a second horizontal plane that is vertically displaced relative to the first horizontal plane (above the plane of the first section 116), wherein the first direction and the second direction are non-parallel (perpendicular); and a photonic coupler (second section 118) connected to the first photonic interconnect and the second photonic interconnect such that: first photonic signals that are incident on the photonic coupler from the first photonic interconnect are directed by the photonic coupler into the second photonic interconnect (i.e., when a photonic signal is inputted at an ingress end 104); and second photonic signals that are incident on the photonic coupler from the second photonic interconnect are directed by the photonic coupler into the first photonic interconnect (since the optical waveguides 102 are bidirectional and any light inputted into egress end is outputted from the ingress end), wherein the photonic coupler further comprises a photonic via (block 302) that connects the first photonic interconnect to the second photonic interconnect, a first angled reflector (first prism 300, Fig. 4) that receives a first horizontally propagating photonic signal (first horizonal signal 301 from 116’) and converts a horizontally propagating photonic signal into a vertically propagating photonic signal (reflected into a vertical signal that propagates in the block 302, Fig. 4) within the photonic via (302); and a second angled reflector (304) that converts the vertically propagating photonic signal within the photonic via into a horizontally propagating photonic signal (the vertical signal that propagated in the block 302 is reflected and becomes a second horizontal signal into 116”).
Regarding claim 3, Brunner further teaches (Fig. 4) the first photonic interconnect (116’) comprises a first photonic propagation path (301) and the second photonic interconnect (116”) comprises a second photonic propagation path (301 after being reflected by 304); the first horizontally propagating photonic signal is received from the first photonic propagation path by the photonic coupler (by 300); and the second horizontally propagating photonic signal is provided by the photonic coupler (304) to the second photonic propagation path.
Regarding claim 12, Brunner further teaches the first photonic interconnect and the second photonic interconnect are each formed of a polymer material (See at least Summary).
Regarding claim 13, Brunner teaches a first photonic interconnect (having ingress ends I1-I6) comprising a first photonic propagation path (first horizontal beam 116’ of an optical waveguide 102 with the ingress I1) and a second photonic propagation path (first horizontal beam 116’ with the ingress I2), wherein the first photonic interconnect is formed over a first horizontal plane (lower plane defined by the horizontal beams 116’); a second photonic interconnect (elevated portions of optical waveguides 102) comprising a third photonic propagation path (third horizontal beam 116” optically connected to the ingress I1) and a fourth photonic propagation path (third horizontal beam 116” optically connected to the ingress I2), wherein the second photonic interconnect is formed over a second horizontal plane (upper plane) that is vertically displaced (above) relative to the first horizontal plane; and a photonic coupler comprising: a first photonic via (vertical column 118” optically coupled to the ingress I1) that connects the first photonic propagation path to the third photonic propagation path; a second photonic (vertical column 118” optically coupled to the ingress I2) via that connects the second photonic propagation path to the fourth photonic propagation path; a first angled reflector (301, Fig. 4) connecting the first photonic propagation path (116’) and the first photonic via (118”); and a second angled reflector (304) connecting the first photonic via (118’) to the third photonic propagation path (116”)
Regarding claim 18, Brunner teaches a photonic device (Fig. 4), comprising: a first photonic waveguide (a first horizontal beam 116’ of a waveguide 102) having a first dielectric constant (inherent of polymer, epoxy, ceramic, or siloxane materials chosen, ¶[0003]) formed within a first layer of a cladding material (not shown but encapsulates the waveguide 102, ¶[0018]) having a second dielectric constant that is less than the first dielectric constant (the cladding can be air, i.e., k=1.0); a second photonic waveguide (second horizontal beam 116” of the waveguide 102) having the first dielectric constant formed within a second layer of the cladding material having the second dielectric constant that is less than the first dielectric constant (same cladding material as the first photonic waveguide and surrounds the entire waveguide 102), wherein the second layer of the cladding material is vertically displaced (by approximately the height of a block 302) relative to the first layer of the cladding material; and a photonic via (the block 302) formed within a third layer of the cladding material separating the first layer of the cladding material and the second layer of the cladding material (the block 302 that connects and separates the two horizontal beams 116’, 116”), wherein the photonic via photonically couples the first photonic waveguide and the second photonic waveguide (as demonstrated by an optical path of an incoming light 301, Fig. 4), the photonic device further comprising a first angled reflector (300) configured to convert a first horizontally propagating photonic signal (301) in the first photonic waveguide (116’) into a vertically propagating photonic signal within the photonic via (302), and a second angled reflector (304) configured to convert the vertically propagating photonic signal into a second horizontally propagating photonic signal in the second photonic waveguide (116”).
Regarding claim 21, Brunner further teaches the first angled reflector (300) and the second angled reflector (304) are each formed at an interface between a core portion and the cladding material and are configured to reflect photonic signals due to total internal reflection (prisms reflect light based on the principle of total internal reflection).
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.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brunner et al. as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of DE 10054370 A1 patent publication by Kropp.
Regarding claim 5, Brunner teaches the photonic device in which the photonic coupler (118) coupled the first and second interconnects (116’, 116”) on two different planes or layers. Brunner does not teach a third interconnect that is also coupled to the photonic coupler, with the photonic coupler acting as a splitter. Kropp also teaches an optical device (Fig. 2) for coupling light between parallel layers, comprising a first interconnect (1) in a first layer (6’), a coupler (7), and a second interconnect (2) in a second layer (6”) parallel to the first layer (6’), and wherein the second photonic interconnect further may comprise a third photonic propagation path (3, Figs. 6, 7); and the photonic coupler further comprises a third angled reflector (30) that converts a portion of the vertically propagating photonic signal into a third horizontally propagating photonic signal that is provided to the third photonic propagation path such that the first horizontally propagating photonic signal is split into the second horizontally propagating photonic signal and the third horizontally propagating photonic signal (Figs. 6, 7); and wherein the first photonic propagation path is oriented along the first direction (vertical direction, Fig. 7b), the second photonic propagation path is oriented along the second direction (horizontal direction, Fig. 7b), and the third photonic propagation path is oriented along a third direction (horizontal direction and co-linear with the second direction, Fig. 7b), wherein the second direction is oriented at a first angle (perpendicular) that is between 0 ̊ and 180 ̊ relative to the first direction, and wherein the third direction is oriented at a second angle (perpendicular) that is between 0 ̊ and 180 ̊ relative to the first direction. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Brunner’s invention, by using a splitter to split and reflect the incoming light (301) into two different secondary optical interconnects (116”), e.g., in mutually opposite directions as suggested in Fig. 7 of Kropp’s invention, for the purpose of branching an input optical signal as is known in the art.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brunner et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. PGPub 2007/0140616 by Sugita et al.
Regarding claim 8, Brunner teaches the photonic device comprising a plurality of prisms (301, 304) used to reflect light signals between the sections (116’, 116”) of the optical waveguides (102). Sugita also teaches using prisms (21, 22) for reflecting light among optical waveguides (11, 12, 13), wherein the prism is provided with a reflection film 3, wherein the reflection film 3 comprise a metal film such as aluminum material. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Brunner’s invention by using aluminum films to form the reflective surfaces of the prisms, as suggested by Sugita, for its low cost and high reflectivity across different wavelengths.
Claim(s) 10, 11, 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brunner et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. PGPub 2006/0051101 by Vishkin. Brunner further teaches the first photonic interconnect and the second photonic interconnect are each formed as a dielectric waveguide having a core portion (optical waveguide 102) comprising a first dielectric constant (inherent) surrounded by a cladding material (not shown but encapsulates the waveguide 102, ¶[0018]). Brunner teaches the waveguide may be formed of polymer, epoxy, ceramic, or siloxane materials (¶[0003]) but does not specify the core and cladding materials are Si/SiO2 and are of different dielectric constant as claimed, though it is noted that Si/SiO2 are considered ceramic materials. Vishkin teaches an optical interconnect structure (24) fabricated using a waveguide technology, such as for example, Si/SiO2 strip waveguide technology, wherein the materials used in fabrication of the optical interconnect fabric may include the silica-or-silicon, where Si can be used for substrate and as core material, while SiO2 may be used as cladding material, i.e., a silicon oxide cladding layer formed over a silicon substrate layer, and a silicon device/core layer formed over the silicon oxide layer. (¶[0079]) It is noted that since claim 11 depends on and further limits claim 10, the silicon/silicon oxide waveguide must also meet the claimed dielectric properties recited in claim 10. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Brunner’s invention, by selecting the Si/SiO2 waveguide technology suggested by Vishkin, which has a high index contrast between the core and cladding to improve optical confinement and reduce optical losses.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brunner et al. as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of U.S. PGPub 2007/0140616 by Sugita et al.
Regarding claim 20, Brunner teaches the photonic device comprising a plurality of prisms (301, 304) used to reflect light signals between the sections (116’, 116”) of the optical waveguides (102). Sugita also teaches using prisms (21, 22) for reflecting light among optical waveguides (11, 12, 13), wherein the prism is provided with a reflection film 3, wherein the reflection film 3 comprise a metal film such as aluminum material. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Brunner’s invention by using aluminum films to form the reflective surfaces of the prisms, as suggested by Sugita, for its low cost and high reflectivity across different wavelengths.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Relevant prior art fails to disclose or further suggest that the photonic coupler co comprises a photonic gain medium that increases respective intensities of the second horizontally propagating photonic signal and the third horizontally propagating photonic signal, or a photonic gain medium located in the first photonic propagation path and the second photonic propagation path such that the photonic gain medium increases respective intensities of the first photonic signal and the second photonic signal, when considered in view of the rest of the limitations of the claimed invention.
Claims 14-17, 24 are allowed. Claims 22, 23 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Relevant prior art fails to further teach or suggest the first photonic interconnect further comprises a fifth photonic propagation path connected to the first photonic propagation path and the second photonic propagation path at a junction such that an input photonic signal traveling within the fifth photonic propagation path toward the function is split into a first portion propagating in the first photonic propagation path and a second portion propagating in the second photonic propagation path, when considered in view of the rest of the limitations of the claimed invention. Brunner’s invention is designed to be a 1-to-1 optical interconnect on input/output ends and it is the examiner’s position that splitting an input photonic signal or combining multiple photonic signals would not have been an obvious or reasonable modification to Brunner.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. USP9583912 discloses an optical system comprising reflectors and an optical via.
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 CHARLIE PENG whose telephone number is (571)272-2177. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM - 6PM.
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.
/CHARLIE Y PENG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874