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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8, filed 3/31/26, with respect to the rejection of claims 13-14 under 35 U.S.C. 112, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 13-14 under 35 U.S.C. 112 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-13, filed 3/31/26, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 8, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Tamanuki (US 2012/0148190 A1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made under 35 U.S.C. 103.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-9, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamanuki (US 2012/0148190 A1) and Stegmueller et al. (US 5,195,150).
Re. Claim 1, Tamanuki discloses an optical device comprising:
a first substrate 50 (Fig. 6; [0082]-[0083]);
a first lens 51’ on a first side of the first substrate 50, the first lens 51’ having a first radius of curvature (Fig. 6; [0085]); and
a second lens 52’ on the first side of the first substrate 50, the second lens 52’ having a second radius of curvature different from the first radius of curvature (Fig. 6; [0085]-[0086]).
However, Tamanuki does not disclose a first material located directly between and extending from the first lens to the second lens.
Stegmueller et al. discloses an optical device comprising first and second lenses 4 and 24, each having a unique radius of curvature, wherein a first material (e.g., in interspace 17 of Fig. 3 or recess 25 of Fig. 4) is located directly between and extending from the first lens 4 to the second lens 24 (Figs. 3 and 4; col. 4 lines 53-58).
The claimed arrangement would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed for the purpose of reducing optical loss due to scattered light in the optical device.
Re. Claim 3, Tamanuki and Stegmeuller et al. render obvious the optical device as discussed above. Tamanuki also discloses a first die 20 attached to the first substrate 50; and a second die 30 attached to the first substrate 50 (Fig. 6; [0085]). The claimed arrangement would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the reasons discussed above.
Re. Claim 6, Tamanuki and Stegmeuller et al. render obvious the optical device as discussed above. Tamanuki also discloses first optical components 20/30 adjacent to the first side of the first substrate 50 (Fig. 6; [0084]). The claimed arrangement would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the reasons discussed above.
Re. Claim 7, Tamanuki and Stegmeuller et al. render obvious the optical device as discussed above. Tamanuki also discloses first optical components 61/62 adjacent to a second side of the first substrate 50 opposite the first side of the first substrate 50 (Figs. 1A and 6; [0083]). The claimed arrangement would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the reasons discussed above.
Re. Claim 8, Tamanuki discloses an optical device comprising:
a first substrate 50 with an optical receiving region and an optical transmission region (Fig. 6; [0082]-[0083]);
a first lens 51’ within the optical receiving region (Fig. 6; [0084]-[0085]); and
a second lens 52’ within the optical transmission region, the second lens 52’ having a different radius of curvature from the first lens 51’ (Fig. 6; [0085]-[0086]).
However, Tamanuki does not disclose an arrangement comprising a first anti-reflective layer interfacing the first lens: a second anti-reflective layer interfacing the second lens; and a first material interfacing both the first anti-reflective layer and the second anti-reflective layer.
Stegmueller et al. discloses an optical device having first and second lenses 4 and 24, each having a unique radius of curvature and each provided with an anti-reflective layer 19, wherein a first material (e.g., in interspace 17 of Fig. 3 or recess 25 of Fig. 4) is located directly between and extending from the first lens 4 to the second lens 24 (Figs. 3 and 4; col. 4 lines 53-58).
The claimed arrangement would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed for the purpose of reducing optical loss due to scattered light in the optical device.
Re. Claim 9, Tamanuki and Stegmeuller et al. render obvious the optical device as discussed above. Tamanuki also discloses a first active layer 21/31 of first optical components 20/30 adjacent to the first lens 51’ and the second lens 52’ (Fig. 6; [0086]). The claimed arrangement would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the reasons discussed above.
Re. Claims 2 and 11, Tamanuki and Stegmueeller et al render obvius the optical device as discussed above. Tamanuki also discloses a third lens 53 on a second side of the first substrate 50, the third lens 53 having a third radius of curvature; and a fourth lens 54 on the second side of the first substrate 54, the fourth lens having a fourth radius of curvature equal to the third radius of curvature (Fig. 6; [0075], [0082]).
Tamanuki does not disclose an arrangement wherein the fourth radius of curvature is different from the third radius of curvature.
The claimed arrangement would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the purpose of minimizing optical loss in arrangements where the optical fibers are differently spaced from the substrate (Tamanuki: [0086]).
Claim(s) 4, 5, and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamanuki (US 2012/0148190 A1) and Stegmueller et al. (US 5,195,150), in further view of Matsuoka et al. (US 2011/0299808 A1).
Re. Claim 4, Tamanuki and Stegmueller et al. render obvious the optical device as discussed above. Tamanuki discloses a first die (e.g., emitter) 20 attached to the first substrate 50; and a second die (e.g., receiver) 30 attached to the first substrate 50 (Fig. 6; [0085]).
However, Tamanuki does not disclose an arrangement further comprising: a third lens on the first die, the third lens having a third radius of curvature; and a fourth lens on the second die, the fourth lens having a fourth radius of curvature different from the third radius of curvature.
Matsuoka et al. discloses an optical device for coupling a first die 17 and a second die 18 with an optical waveguide 13, comprising a first substrate 30 comprising a first lens 6a and a second lens 6b formed on a common side and respectively coupled to a first die 17 and a second die 18, the first die 17 comprising a third lens 16a with a third radius of curvature and the second die 18 comprising a fourth lens 16b with a fourth radius of curvature, wherein the fourth radius of curvature is different from the third radius of curvature (Fig. 5A-5B; [0059]-[0060], [0068]-[0069], [0120]-[0122]).
The claimed arrangement would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the purpose of realizing highly-accurate mounting of elements (Matsuoka et al.: [0028]).
Re. Claim 5, Tamanuki et al., Stegmueller et al., and Matsuoka et al. render obvious the optical device as discussed above. Tamanuki also discloses a fifth lens 53 on a second side of the first substrate 50, the fifth lens 53 having a fifth radius of curvature; and a sixth lens 54 on the second side of the first substrate 50, the sixth lens 54 having a sixth radius of curvature equal to the fifth radius of curvature (Fig. 6; [0075], [0082]).
Tamanuki does not disclose an arrangement wherein the sixth radius of curvature is different from the fifth radius of curvature.
The claimed arrangement would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the purpose of minimizing optical loss in arrangements where the optical fibers are differently spaced from the substrate (Tamanuki: [0086]).
Re. Claim 12, Tamanuki et al. and Stegmueller et al. render obvious the optical device as discussed above.
However, Tamanuki does not disclose an arrangement further comprising a fifth lens aligned with the third lens and the first lens, the fifth lens on a second substrate different from the first substrate; and a sixth lens aligned with the fourth lens and the second lens, the sixth lens on a third substrate different from the first substrate and the second substrate, the sixth lens having a different radius of curvature from the fifth lens.
Matsuoka et al. discloses an optical device for coupling a second substrate 17 and a third substrate 18 with a first substrate 30; the second substrate 17 comprising a fifth lens 16a with a fifth radius of curvature and the third substrate 18 comprising a sixth lens 16b with a sixth radius of curvature, wherein the fifth radius of curvature is different from the sixth radius of curvature (Fig. 5A-5B; [0059]-[0060], [0068]-[0069], [0120]-[0122]).
The claimed arrangement would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the purpose of realizing highly-accurate mounting of elements (Matsuoka et al.: [0028]).
Re. Claims 13 and 14, Tamanuki, Stegmueller et al., and Matsuoka et al. render obvious the optical device as discussed above.
However, Matsuoka et al. does not disclose arrangements comprising either an optical fiber or a fiber array unit attached to the second substrate.
Both optical fibers and optical fiber arrays are known in the art, and the claimed arrangement would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the purpose of providing a coupling arrangement between optical fibers. “A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton” – ‘[w]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.” KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamanuki (US 2012/0148190 A1) and Stegmueller et al. (US 5,195,150), in further view of Kropp (US 2002/0071639 A1).
Re. Claim 10, Tamanuki and Stegmueller et al. render obvius the optical device as discussed above. Tamanuki does not disclose a first active layer of first optical components on an opposite side of the first substrate from the first lens and the second lens.
Kropp discloses an optical device with a first optical component 2 comprising an active layer, the active layer being coupled to a lens arranged on a substrate 10 so that light from the active layer is directed into the optical waveguide (Fig. 1; [0018]-[0019]). As seen in Figure 1, the first optical component 2 is arranged on a opposite side of the substrate 10 as the lens.
The claimed arrangement would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the purpose of providing an arrangement capable of providing extra protection to the active element (Kropp: [0004]).
Claim(s) 15, 16, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamanuki (US 2012/0148190 A1).
Re. Claim 15, Tamanuki discloses a method of manufacturing an optical device, the method comprising:
forming a first lens 51’ on a first side of a first substrate 50 (Fig. 6; [0082]-[0083]);
forming a second lens 52’ on the first side of the first substrate 50, wherein the first lens 51’ and the second lens 52’ have different radii of curvature (Fig. 6; [0084]-[0086]); and
placing a fiber array unit 160 over the first lens 51’ (Fig. 1A; [0052]),
However, Tamanuki does not disclose the fiber array unit comprising a third lens different from the first lens and the second lens.
Tamanauki does disclose a third lens 53 or 54 for coupling to optical fibers 61 or 62 of the optical fiber array 160 (Figs. 1A and 6; [0083]), the third lens 53 or 54 being different from each of the first and second lenses 51’ and 52’.
The claimed arrangement would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. In the present case, when the lens 53/54 is formed as a portion of the optical fiber array, instead as a part of the first substrate.
Re. Claim 16, Tamanuki renders obvious the optical devide as discussed above. Tamanuki also discloses a first active layer 21/31 of first optical components 20/30 adjacent to the first lens 51’ and the second lens 52’ (Fig. 6; [0086]). The claimed arrangement would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the reasons discussed above.
Re. Claim 20, Tamanuki renders obvious the method as discussed above. Tamanuki does not disclose forming the first lens and the forming the second lens are formed using a single patterning process.
Patterning is a well-known process in the art, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have found the claimed arrangement obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the purpose of using a well-known technique to form the optical device in a time efficient process. The claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamanuki (US 2012/0148190 A1) and Kropp (US 2002/0071639 A1).
Re. Claim 17, Tamanuki renders obvious the optical device as discussed above. Tamanuki does not disclose a first active layer of first optical components on an opposite side of the first substrate from the first lens and the second lens.
Kropp discloses an optical device with a first optical component 2 comprising an active layer, the active layer being coupled to a lens arranged on a substrate 10 so that light from the active layer is directed into the optical waveguide (Fig. 1; [0018]-[0019]). As seen in Figure 1, the first optical component 2 is arranged on a opposite side of the substrate 10 as the lens.
The claimed arrangement would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the purpose of providing an arrangement capable of providing extra protection to the active element (Kropp: [0004]).
Claim(s) 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamanuki (US 2012/0148190 A1) and Matsuoka et al. (US 2011/0299808 A1).
Re. Claims 18-19, Tamanuki renders obvious the method as discussed above. Tamanuki does not disclose bonding a second substrate to the first substrate, the second substrate comprising a third lens on a third side of the second substrate, the third side facing the first substrate. Tamanuki also does not disclose bonding a third substrate to the first substrate, the third substrate comprising a fourth lens on a fourth side of the third substrate, the fourth side facing the first substrate, the fourth lens having a different radius of curvature from the third lens.
Matsuoka et al. discloses the method of manufacturing an optical device for coupling a second substrate 17 and a third substrate 18 with an optical waveguide 13 on a first substrate 30, comprising bonding a second substrate 17 to the first substrate 30, the second substrate 17 comprising a third lens 16a on a third side of the second substrate 17, the third side facing the first substrate 30 and bonding a third substrate 18 to the first substrate 30, the third substrate 18 comprising a fourth lens 16b on a fourth side of the third substrate 18, the fourth side facing the first substrate, the fourth lens 16b having a different radius of curvature from the third lens 16a (Fig. 4-5B; [0059]-[0060], [0068]-[0069], [0096]-[0097], [0120]-[0122]).
The claimed arrangement would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the purpose of realizing highly-accurate mounting of elements (Matsuoka et al.: [0028]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See the attached PTO-892.
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 R. PEACE whose telephone number is (571)272-8580. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 pm.
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.
/RHONDA S PEACE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874 4/23/26
Prosecution Insights