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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The prior art documents submitted by applicant in the Information Disclosure Statements filed 11/20/2023 and 04/01/2025 have all been considered and made of record.
Joint Inventors
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.
Drawings
Eleven (11) sheets of drawings were filed on 11/20/2023 and 11/20/2024 have been objected to by the examiner.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “…second device…” of claim 20 and the “…a transmitter, a receiver, a transceiver, a low-noise amplifier, a power amplifier, a passive device, or a combination thereof…” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With regards to claim 15, the recites “The device of claim 8, further comprising a passive element integrated within the glass layer and including features on the first side of the glass layer and the second side of the glass layer”. It is unclear whether the “…features on the first side of the glass layer and the second side of the glass layer” are included in just the “…device of claim 8…” or also the “…passive element…”. The claim is indefinite because the current wording begets confusion regarding the intended bounds of the limitations.
Examiner’s note: For the purposes of further examination, examiner has interpreted claim 15 as requiring that the device (not necessarily the passive element) include features on the first and second sides of the glass layer.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claims 1-2, 5-6, 8-13, 17-19, 23, 25-29, and 31-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mathai (US 9014519 B2) in view of Kishima (US 20090185808 A1).
With regards to claim 1, Mathai discloses a device comprising:
a glass layer (Mathai/Fig2/Glass layer 102; Paragraph 28);
an optical fiber (Fig2/Optical fiber 204) directly attached to the glass layer (Fig2);
a photo diode (Fig2/Photo diode 202; Column 5/“…In other examples, the optical signal source may be replaced with an optical signal detection device such as, but not limited to, photodetectors or phototransistors. Further examples may include both optical signal sources and detectors to form a transceiver…”) electrically connected to an element (Fig2/Element 208); and
a lens (Fig2/Lens 104) coupled to or included within the glass layer and configured to manipulate light exchanged between the optical fiber and the photo diode, wherein the photo diode is configured to convert optical signals from the optical fiber into electrical signals for the element, convert electrical signals from the element to optical signals provided to the optical fiber, or both (Fig2; Column 5/Lines 45-58).
Mathai discloses that the element can be a receiver element (Column 5/Lines 45-58/“…the optical signal source may be replaced with an optical signal detection device…” [When element 202 is replaced with an optical signal detection device, element 208 is a receiver element]), but is silent regarding the element being an antenna element. However, the practice of incorporating an antenna element into an optoelectronic device exists in the art as exemplified by Kishima.
Mathai and Kishima are considered to be analogous in the field of optoelectronic devices. Mathai discloses a data source electrically connected to a photo diode configured for signal conversion. Kishima discloses an antenna element optically coupled to lenses and electrically connected to a signal conversion element (Kishima/Fig1/Antenna element 22). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select an antenna element as the data receiver element of Mathai as suggested by Kishima since doing so would allow data to be sent to the device of Mathai from a remote location.
With regards to claim 2, Mathai and Kishima together disclose the device of claim 1, wherein the light exchanged between the optical fiber and the photo diode passes through the glass layer (Mathai/Fig2).
With regards to claim 5, Mathai and Kishima together disclose the device of claim 1, wherein the lens corresponds to a shaped portion of the glass layer (Mathai/Fig2).
With regards to claim 6, Mathai and Kishima together disclose the device of claim 1, wherein the lens corresponds to a gradient index lens included within the glass layer (Kishima/Paragraph 48 “…SELFOC lenses…” [SELFOC lenses are GRIN lenses]).
With regards to claim 8, Mathai and Kishima together disclose the device of claim 1, wherein the optical fiber is directly attached to a first side of the glass layer, and wherein the photo diode is on a second side of the glass layer that is opposite the first side of the glass layer (Mathai/Fig2).
With regards to claim 9, Mathai and Kishima together disclose the device of claim 8, but are silent regarding the antenna element being adjacent to the first side of the glass layer. However, examiner notes that the formation of the antenna element adjacent the first side of the glass layer corresponds to the embodiment presented at least in figure 5 of the instant application, which is considered to be an obvious variant of the embodiment presented at least in figure 7b, wherein the antenna element is formed on the second side of the glass layer. Should Applicant assert that these are not obvious variants, a restriction may be necessary.
With regards to claim 10, Mathai and Kishima together disclose the device of claim 8, wherein the photo diode is adjacent to the second side of the glass layer (Mathai/Fig2).
With regards to claim 11, Mathai and Kishima together disclose the device of claim 8, wherein a distance between the second side of the glass layer and the photo diode corresponds to a focal length of the lens (Mathai/Fig2).
With regards to claim 12, Mathai and Kishima together disclose the device of claim 8, wherein the antenna element is on the second side of the glass layer (Mathai/Fig2).
With regards to claim 13, Mathai and Kishima together disclose the device of claim 8, further comprising one or more passive elements on the second side of the glass layer (Mathai/Fig2/Passive elements 106).
With regards to claim 17, Mathai and Kishima together disclose the device of claim 1, further comprising a laminate substrate that is between the photo diode and the antenna element (Mathai/Fig2/Laminate substrate 210).
With regards to claim 18, Mathai and Kishima together disclose the device of claim 17, wherein the antenna element is adjacent to a first side of the laminate substrate (Mathai/Fig2/[Relative positions of elements 210 and 208]).
With regards to claim 19, Mathai and Kishima together disclose the device of claim 17, further comprising one or more passive elements coupled to or embedded within the laminate substrate (Mathai/Fig2/Passive element 212).
With regards to claim 23, Mathai and Kishima together disclose the device of claim 1, but are silent regarding:
a second optical fiber directly attached to the glass layer;
a second photo diode electrically connected to a second antenna element, wherein an antenna array includes the antenna element and the second antenna element; and
a second lens coupled to or included within the glass layer and configured to manipulate light exchanged between the second optical fiber and the second photo diode, wherein the second photo diode is configured to convert optical signals from the second optical fiber into electrical signals for the second antenna element, convert electrical signals from the second antenna element to optical signals provided to the second optical fiber, or both.
However, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art (St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a second optical fiber, second, photo diode, and second antenna element since doing so would facilitate multiplication of the information and communication capacity of the device.
With regards to claim 25, Mathai discloses a method of fabricating a device, the method comprising:
aligning an optical fiber with a lens and a photo diode so the lens is positioned to manipulate light exchanged between the optical fiber and the photo diode (Mathai/Fig2/Optical fiber 204, lens 104, and photodiode [Column 5/Lines 45-49]);
directly attaching the optical fiber to a first side of a glass layer that includes or is coupled to the lens (Mathai/Fig2/[Relative dispositions of Elements 204 and 102]); and
electrically connecting the photo diode to an element (Mathai/Fig2/Element 208; Electrical connections 214 and 216), wherein the photo diode is configured to convert optical signals from the optical fiber into electrical signals for the element, convert electrical signals from the antenna element to optical signals provided to the optical fiber, or both (Fig2; Column 5/Lines 45-58).
Mathai is silent regarding the element being an antenna element. However, the practice of incorporating an antenna element into an optoelectronic device exists in the art as exemplified by Kishima.
Mathai and Kishima are considered to be analogous in the field of optoelectronic devices. Mathai discloses a data source electrically connected to a photo diode configured for signal conversion. Kishima discloses an antenna element optically coupled to lenses and electrically connected to a signal conversion element (Kishima/Fig1/Antenna element 22). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select an antenna element as the data source in the fabrication method of Mathai as suggested by Kishima since doing so would allow data to be sent to the finished device of Mathai from a remote location.
With regards to claim 26, Mathai and Kishima together disclose the method of claim 25, further comprising shaping a portion of the glass layer to form the lens (Mathai/Fig2).
With regards to claim 27, Mathai and Kishima together disclose the method of claim 25, but are silent regarding the formation of the antenna element on the first side of the glass layer. However, examiner notes that the formation of the antenna element on the first side of the glass layer corresponds to the embodiment presented at least in figure 5 of the instant application, which is considered to be an obvious variant of the embodiment presented at least in figure 7b, wherein the antenna element is formed on the second side of the glass layer. Should Applicant assert that these are not obvious variants, a restriction may be necessary.
With regards to claim 28, Mathai and Kishima together disclose the method of claim 25, further comprising forming one or more passive elements on a second side of the glass layer that is opposite the first side of the glass layer (Mathai/Fig2/Passive elements 106).
With regards to claim 29, Mathai and Kishima together disclose the method of claim 28, further comprising forming the antenna element on the second side of the glass layer (Mathai/Fig2).
With regards to claim 31, Mathai discloses a device comprising:
a glass layer (Mathai/Glass layer 102);
an optical fiber directly attached to the glass layer (Fig2/Optical fiber 204);
an element (Fig2/Element 208);
a photo diode electrically connected to the element (Fig2/Photo diode 202; Column 5/“…In other examples, the optical signal source may be replaced with an optical signal detection device such as, but not limited to, photodetectors or phototransistors. Further examples may include both optical signal sources and detectors to form a transceiver…”); and
a plurality of lenses coupled to or included within the glass layer (Fig2/Lens 104), a particular lens of the plurality of lenses configured to manipulate light exchanged between a particular optical fiber and the particular photo diode, wherein the particular photo diode is configured to convert optical signals from the particular optical fiber into electrical signals for the corresponding antenna element, convert electrical signals from the corresponding antenna element to optical signals provided to the particular optical fiber, or both (Fig2; Column 5/Lines 45-58).
Mathai discloses that the element can be a receiver element (Column 5/Lines 45-58/“…the optical signal source may be replaced with an optical signal detection device…” [When element 202 is replaced with an optical signal detection device, element 208 is a receiver element]), but is silent regarding the element being an antenna element. However, the practice of incorporating an antenna element into an optoelectronic device exists in the art as exemplified by Kishima.
Mathai and Kishima are considered to be analogous in the field of optoelectronic devices. Mathai discloses a data source electrically connected to a photo diode configured for signal conversion. Kishima discloses an antenna element optically coupled to lenses and electrically connected to a signal conversion element (Kishima/Fig1/Antenna element 22). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select an antenna element as the data source of Mathai as suggested by Kishima since doing so would allow data to be sent to the device of Mathai from a remote location.
Mathai and Kishima are silent regarding the above optical fiber, antenna element, and photo diode comprising pluralities of optical fibers, antennae, and photo diodes respectively. However, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art (St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a second optical fiber, second, photo diode, and second antenna element since doing so would facilitate multiplication of the information and communication capacity of the device.
With regards to claim 32, Mathai and Kishima together disclose the device of claim 31, further comprising a laminate substrate between the plurality of photo diodes and the plurality of antenna elements (Mathai/Laminate substrate 210).
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mathai (US 9014519 B2) and Kishima (US 20090185808 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Hu (US 8503840 B2).
With regards to claim 3, Mathai and Kishima together disclose the device of claim 1, but are silent regarding the optical fiber being fused to the glass layer. However, the practice of fusing an optical fiber to a glass layer exists in the art as exemplified by Hu.
Mathai, Kishima, and Hu are considered to be analogous in the field of optical fiber interfaces. Mathai and Kishima together disclose an optical fiber attached to a glass layer. Hu teaches an optical fiber fused to a glass layer (Hu/Column 9/Lines 64-67). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to fuse the fiber of Mathai and Kishima to the glass layer of Mathai and Kishima as suggested by Hu since doing so would create a strong connection between the two components while simultaneously facilitating a reduction in optical losses.
With regards to claim 4, Mathai and Kishima together disclose the device of claim 1, but are silent regarding the optical fiber being adhered to the glass layer. However, the practice of adhering an optical fiber to a glass layer exists in the art as exemplified by Hu.
Mathai, Kishima, and Hu are considered to be analogous in the field of optical fiber interfaces. Mathai and Kishima together disclose an optical fiber attached to a glass layer. Hu teaches an optical fiber adhered to a glass layer (Hu/Column 10/Lines 1-2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adhere the fiber of Mathai and Kishima to the glass layer of Mathai and Kishima as suggested by Hu since doing so would create a strong connection between the two components while simultaneously facilitating improved optical communication.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mathai (US 9014519 B2) and Kishima (US 20090185808 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Amirkiai (US 20160047997 A1).
With regards to claim 7, Mathai and Kishima together disclose the device of claim 1, but are silent regarding the lens being adhered to the glass layer. However, the practice of adhering a lens to a layer exist in the art as exemplified by Amirkiai.
Mathai, Kishima, and Amirkiai are considered to be analogous in the field of optoelectronic devices. Mathai and Kishima together disclose a lens and a glass layer. Amirkiai teaches lenses adhered to a layer. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the device of Mathai and Kishima such that the lenses were attached to the layer as suggested by Amirkiai since doing so would simplify the fabrication of the glass layer component and facilitate the fabrication of different lenses for the device.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mathai (US 9014519 B2) and Kishima (US 20090185808 A1) as applied to claim 13 above, in further view of Amirkiai (US 20160047997 A1).
With regards to claim 14, Mathai and Kishima together disclose the device of claim 13, but are silent regarding wherein the one or more passive elements include at least one capacitor, at least one inductor, or a combination thereof. However, the practice of incorporating a capacitor and/or an inductor into a passive structure of an optoelectronic device exists in the art as exemplified by Amirkiai.
Mathai, Kishima, and Amirkiai are considered to be analogous in the field of optoelectronic devices. Mathai and Kishima together disclose a passive element. Amirkiai teaches a passive element inclusive of a capacitor and/or an inductor (Amirkiai/Fig5; Paragraph 53/Lines 7-11). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the device of Mathai and Kashima such that it included a capacitor and/or an inductor since doing so would provide an avenue for voltage stabilization within the passive structure.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mathai (US 9014519 B2) and Kishima (US 20090185808 A1) as applied to claim 13 above, in further view of Peh (US 20170123169 A1).
With regards to claim 15, Mathai and Kishima together disclose the device of claim 8, including features on the first side of the glass layer and the second side of the glass layer (Mathai/Fig2), but are silent regarding whether or not a passive element is integrated within the glass layer. However, the practice of incorporating a passive element within a glass layer of an optoelectronic device exists in the art as exemplified by Peh.
Mathai, Kishima, and Peh are considered to be analogous in the field of optoelectronic devices. Mathai and Kishima disclose a device with a glass layer. Peh discloses a device with a glass layer with integrated passive features (Peh/Fig5/Passive features 512). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to integrate passive features within the glass layer of Mathai and Kishima as suggested by Peh since doing so would allow for the incorporation of additional functions within the glass layer, thereby facilitating efficient use of space within the device.
Claims 16 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mathai (US 9014519 B2) and Kishima (US 20090185808 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Karhade (US 12399334 B2).
With regards to claim 16, Mathai and Kishima together disclose the device of claim 1, but are silent regarding the device further comprising a sealant layer that encapsulates a volume that includes the photo diode and the lens. However, the practice of incorporating a sealant layer within an optoelectronic device exists in the art as exemplified by Karhade.
Mathai, Kishima, and Karhade are considered to be analogous in the field of optoelectronic devices. Mathai and Kishima together disclose an optoelectronic device. Karhade discloses an optoelectronic device inclusive of a volume encapsulated by a sealing layer (Karhade/Fig2/Sealing layer 133). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to surround the photo diode and lens containing volume of the device of Mathai and Kishima with a sealant layer as suggested by Karhade since doing so would facilitate the protection of the photo diode and lens from hostile environmental conditions and physical damage.
With regards to claim 22, Mathai and Kishima together disclose the device of claim 1, but are silent regarding the device further comprising a mold compound at least partially encapsulating the glass layer, the optical fiber, the photo diode, the lens, or a combination thereof. However, the practice of incorporating a mold compound for the encapsulation of components within an optoelectronic device exists in the art as exemplified by Karhade.
Mathai, Kishima, and Karhade are considered to be analogous in the field of optoelectronic devices. Mathai and Kishima together disclose an optoelectronic device. Karhade discloses an optoelectronic device inclusive of elements encapsulated by a mold compound (Karhade/Fig2/Mold compound 133). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to at least partially surround the glass layer, the optical fiber, the photo diode, the lens, or a combination thereof of Mathai and Kishima with a mold compound as suggested by Karhade since doing so would facilitate the protection of the glass layer, optical fiber, photo diode, and/or lens from hostile environmental conditions and physical damage.
Claims 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mathai (US 9014519 B2) and Kishima (US 20090185808 A1) as applied to claim 17 above, in further view of Min (US 12498527 B2).
With regards to claim 20, Mathai and Kishima together disclose the device of claim 17, wherein the photo diode is embedded in a die (Mathai/Fig2; Lines 45-50), but are silent regarding whether or not a second device is coupled to the die via the laminate substrate. However, the practice of coupling a photo diode inclusive die within a device to a second device via a laminate substrate exists in the art as exemplified by Min.
Mathai, Kishima, and Min are considered to be analogous in the field of optoelectronic devices. Mathai and Kishima together disclose a device with a photo diode inclusive die coupled to a laminate substrate. Min discloses a device with a photo diode inclusive die coupled to a second device via a laminate substrate (Min/Fig3f/Die 301, second device 317, laminate substrate 315). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to couple the photo diode inclusive die of Mathai and Kishima with a second device as suggested by Min since doing so would afford the device of Mathai and Kishima an additional set of capabilities defined by said second device.
With regards to claim 21, Mathai, Kishima, and Min together disclose the device of claim 20, wherein the second device includes a transmitter, a receiver, a transceiver, a low-noise amplifier, a power amplifier, a passive device, or a combination thereof (Min/Fig3f; Column 6/Lines 33-34).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mathai (US 9014519 B2) and Kishima (US 20090185808 A1) as applied to claim 25 above, in further view of Chen (US 10302883 B2).
Mathai and Kishima together disclose the device of claim 23, but are silent regarding a pitch distance between a center of a first connection of the optical fiber to the glass layer and a center of a second connection of the second optical fiber to the glass layer is less than 0.2 millimeters (mm). However, the practice of configuring a device such that the distance between the connection centers of two fibers is less than 0.2 mm is known in the art as exemplified by Chen.
Mathai, Kishima, Amirkiai, and Chen are considered to be analogous in the field of optoelectronic devices. Mathai, Kishima, and Amirkiai together disclose multiple fibers connected to a glass layer. Chen discloses two fibers spaced such that the connection centers of the two fibers is less than 0.2 mm (Chen/Figs2a-b; Paragraph 37). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to space the fibers of Mathai, Kishima, and Amirkiai such that the distance between the connection centers of two fibers is less than 0.2 mm as suggested by Chen 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.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mathai (US 9014519 B2) and Kishima (US 20090185808 A1) as applied to claim 25 above, in further view of Hu (US 8503840 B2).
With regards to claim 30, Mathai and Kishima together disclose the method of claim 25, but are silent regarding the optical fiber being fused to the glass layer. However, the practice of fusing an optical fiber to a glass layer exists in the art as exemplified by Hu.
Mathai, Kishima, and Hu are considered to be analogous in the field of optical fiber interfaces. Mathai and Kishima together disclose an optical fiber attached to a glass layer. Hu teaches an optical fiber fused to a glass layer (Hu/Column 9/Lines 64-67). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to fuse the fiber of Mathai and Kishima to the glass layer of Mathai and Kishima as suggested by Hu since doing so would create a strong connection between the two components while simultaneously facilitating improved optical communication in the finished device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Marc E Manheim whose telephone number is (703)756-1873. The examiner can normally be reached 6:30am - 5pm E.T., Monday - Tuesday and Thursday - Friday.
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.
/MARC E MANHEIM/Examiner, Art Unit 2874
/THOMAS A HOLLWEG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights