DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is responsive to Applicant’s response submitted 05 March 2026.
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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2 and 3-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0334590 to Celo et al in view of U.S. Patent 5,418,870 to Keck et al and U.S. Patent Application Publication 2023/0185034 to Chiu et al.
In regards to claims 1, 13, 14, 17, and 18, Celo recites a photonic system/method (Figure 2), comprising: a photonic structure (214), wherein the photonic structure comprises one or more edge couplers [0023]; and a fiber array unit (FAU) assembly (204 & 208 together) attached to a sidewall of the photonic structure near the one or more edge couplers, wherein the FAU assembly comprises: a connection component (208) secured to the sidewall through an optical glue [0038]; a FAU (204) holding one or more optical fibers (206); and one or more micro-lenses [0022; lensed fiber] provided near a bottom of the connecting component and between the one or more edge couplers and the one or more optical fibers.
But Celo fails to expressly recite wherein the FAU is removably attached to the connection component through a pair of matching connection structures at an interface between the FAU and the connecting component. Celo further fails to recite wherein the connection component comprises a lateral protrusion extending to an upper surface of the photonic structure and one or more micro-lenses opposite to the lateral protrusion.
However, Keck teaches an integrated optical system (Figures 3, 7 & 8) with a FAU assembly removably attached to an optical component (46, 84, 90), where the FAU assembly includes lensed fibers (80). Keck further teaches a pair of matching connection structures (50/52, 94/95) at the interface of the two optical components providing the removable coupling. Since Celo is silent regarding the connection arrangement between the FAU and the connection component and Keck teaches a pair of matching connection structures for removably coupling an FAU assembly and optical component, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have provided a pair of matching connection structures at an interface between the FAU and the connecting component in order for the FAU to be removably attached to the connection component. Furthermore, in terms of structure, forming a pair of matching connections structures with a protrusion and a notch is known, as evidenced by Keck. The placement of the protrusion or notch on either component would have been an obvious matter of common skill and design choice to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made as long as the connection structures are capable of being integrated together to form a more stable connection. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have implemented the connection structures of Keck in the device of Celo so that the connection component comprises a lateral protrusion extending to an upper surface of the photonic structure. Furthermore, modified Celo in view of Keck would therefore also teach one or more micro-lenses opposite to the lateral protrusion.
Lastly, Celo in view of Keck fails to expressly teach a substrate and a photonic structure bonded to the substrate. However, Chui also teaches a photonic system including a fiber array unit, a lens structure inbetween a photonic structure and a fiber unit array, the photonic structure and intermediate structure including the lens structure to be secured with an optical glue. (Figure 5) Chui further teaches all of the optical components to be placed on a substrate (502) to provide support. Since Celo in view of Keck and Chui are all from the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have a substrate and a photonic structure bonded to the substrate.
In regards to claims 2 and 19, Celo recites no adhesive is applied at the interface between the FAU and the connecting component.
In regards to claims 4, 8, and 11, although modified Celo does not expressly recite the optical glue extends between the sidewall of the photonic structure and the connection component, and also extends between the upper surface of the photonic structure and a bottom surface of the lateral protrusion, wherein the one or more micro-lenses are secured to the bottom of the connection component through an adhesive, and wherein the optical glue extends between the sidewall of the photonic structure and the one or more micro-lenses, the application of an optical glue in order to provide additional securement of components is a common technique. Since Celo and Chui both teach an optical glue to secure optical components, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have applied additional optical glue, such as the optical glue extends between the sidewall of the photonic structure and the connection component, and also extends between the upper surface of the photonic structure and a bottom surface of the lateral protrusion, wherein the one or more micro-lenses are secured to the bottom of the connection component through an adhesive, and wherein the optical glue extends between the sidewall of the photonic structure and the one or more micro-lenses.
In regards to claim 5, Keck teaches wherein the pair of matching connection structures comprises a plurality of protrusions (50, 95) and a plurality of recesses (52, 94) corresponding to each other, the protrusions are formed on one of the FAU and the connecting component, and the recesses are formed on the other of the FAU and the connecting component.
In regards to claims 6 and 15, Celo in view of Keck & Chui teach the connection component comprises a lateral protrusion extending to an upper surface of the photonic structure, and the FAU comprises a lateral protrusion covering the lateral protrusion of the connection component, and wherein the protrusions (50, 95) and the recesses (52 & 94) are formed at the interface between the lateral protrusion of the connection component and the lateral protrusion of the FAU.
In regards to claim 7, Keck teaches the protrusions (50, 95) and the recesses (52, 94) are formed at the interface between adjacent sidewalls of the connection component and the FAU.
In regards to claims 9 and 10, Celo recites the one or more micro-lenses to be secured to the connection component by an optical glue. Although Celo does not expressly recite wherein the one or more micro-lenses are secured to the bottom of the connection component through an adhesive or wherein the one or more micro-lenses are embedded within the connection component, it appears either configuration to secure the one or more micro-lenses provides the same function. Furthermore, Applicant has not expressly recited one configuration to solve a stated problem or is for a particular purpose, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have provided wherein the one or more micro-lenses are secured to the bottom of the connection component through an adhesive or wherein the one or more micro-lenses are embedded within the connection component.
In regards to claim 12, Celo in view of Keck & Chui recites the FAU assembly is spaced apart from an upper surface of the substrate where the photonic structure is bonded.
In regards to claim 16, Celo in view of Keck & Chui teaches a fiber connector attached to a sidewall of the FAU opposite the connection component, wherein another pair of matching (50/52, 94/95) is formed at an interface between the FAU and the fiber connector to allow assembly and disassembly of the FAU and the fiber connector.
In regards to claim 20, Celo in view of Keck & Chui teaches separating the FAU from the connection component when the one or more optical fibers need to be replaced or repaired.
In regards to claim 21, Celo in view of Keck & Chui teaches wherein the optical signals from the one or more optical fibers are optically coupled to the one or more edge couplers through the one or more micro-lenses and optically isolated from the connection component.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues Celo in view of Keck fails to teach a lateral protrusion extending to an upper surface of the photonic structure and one or more micro-lenses opposite to the lateral protrusion. However, the Examiner disagrees. The sidewall of the photonic structure is secured to the connection component through optical glue as shown in Figure 2 of Celo. Furthermore, Celo in combination with Keck teaches additional connection components in addition to the optical glue in order to provide an improved alignment and securement of the components. The upper surface of the photonic structure can be reasonably interpreted as the upper surface of the sidewall face. The claim language does not require the sidewall and the upper surface to be different faces of the photonic structure. The claim language further does not define the upper surface having any spatial relationship to the sidewall. The claim language clearly recites a sidewall and an upper surface, the wall and the surface are two different dimensions. Furthermore, Celo in view of Keck as modified, teaches one or more micro-lenses opposite to the lateral protrusion. The claim language does not require the one or more micro-lenses to be directly opposite to the lateral protrusion. Celo in view of Keck as modified, teaches the one or more micro-lenses to be on opposite sides to the lateral protrusion.
Conclusion
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 TINA M WONG whose telephone number is (571)272-2352. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:30.
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.
/TINA WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874