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
Information disclosure statement filed 12/18/2023 has been considered.
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 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) 1-5, 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2009-003096A (hereinafter “JP’096”) in view of JP 08-110446A (hereinafter “JP’446”).
JP 2009-003096A and JP 08-110446A were cited in the parent application, 17/763,274.
Regarding claim 1, JP’096 discloses an optical waveguide package, comprising: a substrate (e.g. 21 in Fig. 1); a cladding on the substrate (5b in Fig. 1), the cladding having a first upper surface and a first recess (3 in Fig. 1; better shown in isometric view Fig. 4) being open in the first upper surface; a core (5a in Fig. 1) in the cladding; a connection pad (21 in Fig. 1 and Fig. 4) in the first recess (i.e. the end of 21 is clearly disposed facing the recess), the connection pad being electrically connectable to a light-emitting element (paragraph [0032]); wherein the first recess has a larger opening area toward a portion adjacent to the first upper surface from a portion adjacent to the substrate (this feature is clearly shown in the cross sectional view Fig. 2).
However, JP’096 does not explicitly disclose the use of a lid disposed on the cladding, in the manner claimed in the present. On the other hand, such a lid is known in the art. JP’446 discloses a lid (3 in Fig. 19(c) of JP’446) disposed on the cladding of a waveguide device, the lid having a lower surface facing the first upper surface of the cladding layer (Fig. 19(c)), the lid having a second recess being open in the lower surface (clearly shown as 3 in Fig. 19(c)), the second recess has a smaller opening area away from the first recess (i.e. such tapered structure is shown as 3 in Fig. 19(c)), the second recess has a larger maximum opening area than the first recess of the waveguide device (Fig. 19(c) of JP’446), and the second recess fully covers the first recess (Fig. 19(c)). A person having ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize such a lid as both advantageous and desirable. Its benefits include easily accommodating oversized optoelectronic elements positioned within the waveguide device's recess while providing superior protection from external environmental factors. Furthermore, this type of lid element is well known for ensuring optimal optical coupling between the waveguide core and the optoelectronic element, resulting in a robust optoelectronic device package. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the present application to modify the device of JP’096 to have a lid in the manner claimed and recited in the present application.
Regarding claim 2, JP’446 does not explicitly disclose that the second recess (recess of the lid) has a depth greater than the depth of the first recess (recess of the waveguide element). On the other hand, a lid having a greater vertical dimension recess is commonly known in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize such a lid as advantageous and desirable, since it would allow for significantly large optoelectronic elements from accommodated within the waveguide element, allowing for a high-powered optical signal transmission. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the present application to modify the devices of JP’096 and JP’446, such that the second recess of the lid has a depth greater than the depth of the first recess of the waveguide element, in the manner claimed in the present application.
Regarding claim 3, JP’069 in view of JP’446 renders all the claimed limitations of claim 1 obvious as already discussed above. In addition, JP’069 discloses the claimed limitations regarding the first recess as claimed in claim 3. Specifically, JP’069 additionally discloses that the first recess has a bottom surface and a first inner wall surface surrounding the bottom surface (clearly shown in Fig. 12), such that the first inner wall surface has a first lower side surrounding the bottom surface and a first upper side connected to the first upper surface (Fig. 12), and the first inner wall surface is inclined with the first upper side located outward from the first lower side (Fig. 12). Also, JP’446 discloses the second recess having a top surface (Fig. 22 of JP’446 clearly shows the top surface labeled as 16), the second inner wall surface surrounding the top surface (Fig. 20 of JP’446), the second inner wall surface has a second upper side surrounding the top surface and a second lower side connected to the lower surface, the second inner wall surface is inclined with the second lower side located outward from the second upper side (shown as 3 in Fig. 20 of JP’446). As such, all the claimed limitations of claim 3 are also rendered obvious over JP’069 modified in view of JP’446 in the manner discussed above regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, the claimed limitations of claim 4 are obvious for the same reasons discussed regarding claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 5, the optical waveguide package of claim 3 is rendered obvious over JP’069 in view of JP’446 as already discussed above. However, neither JP’069 nor JP’446 discloses the second upper side and the top surface being connected to each other with a curved connection in the manner claimed in the present application. However, such curved connections are well known and common in the optoelectronic package art. One of ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize that such curved connections in the lid element would be advantageous and desirable since it would allow for structurally stronger lid component capable of withstanding greater downward force before failure. Stronger lid component would better protect the fragile optoelectronic component disposed within, and ensure robust optoelectronic package. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the present application to modify the device of JP’069 and JP’446 to have a lid element wherein the second upper side and the top surface are connected with each other with a curved connection, in the manner claimed in the present application.
Regarding claim 17, JP’096 in view of JP’446 renders the claimed limitations of claim 1 obvious as already discussed above. In addition, JP’096 discloses the claimed limitations of claim 17, including a conductor extending through the cladding and extending outside the first recess (21a in Fig. 4 of JP’096 discloses the conductor extending through), wherein the connection pad (i.e. portion of 21 exposed to the recess) is continuous with the conductor (Fig. 4). As such the claimed limitations of claim 17 is rendered obvious over JP’096 in view of JP’446 in the same manner as discussed above regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 18-20, JP’096 in view of JP’446 renders the claimed limitations of claim 1 obvious as already discussed above. In addition, JP’096 discloses the claimed limitations of claims 18-20, including a light emitting element (41 in Fig. 1) electrically connected to the connection pad; a conductive bond electrically connecting the light emitting element and the connection pad (inherent property of the connection pad as shown in Fig. 1); the conductive bond being spaced from an outer edge of the light emitting element (clearly shown in Fig. 2). As such the claimed limitations of claim 18 is rendered obvious over JP’096 in view of JP’446 in the same manner as discussed above regarding claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-8 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: as discussed above, an optical waveguide package comprising a substrate, a cladding having a first recess, a core, a connection pad in the first recess, a lid on the cladding where the lid has a second recess, is obvious in view of the cited prior art as already discussed above. However, none of the prior art fairly teaches or suggests such an optical waveguide package, wherein the lid has a second upper surface, and the second recess has an inner wall surface having a greater surface roughness than the second upper surface, in the manner claimed in the present application. There is no credible reason why, or more importantly how, one of ordinary skill in the art would modify the optical waveguide package of the prior art to arrive at such an invention as claimed in the present application.
Claims 9-16 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: as discussed above, an optical waveguide package comprising a substrate, a cladding having a first recess, a core, a connection pad in the first recess, a lid on the cladding where the lid has a second recess, is obvious in view of the cited prior art as already discussed above. However, none of the prior art fairly teaches or suggests such an optical waveguide package, further comprising a first gas barrier layer located on the first upper surface of the cladding and surrounding the first recess; a second gas barrier layer located on the lower surface of the lid and surrounding the second recess; and a bond bonding the first gas barrier layer and the second gas barrier layer, in the manner claimed and recited in the present application. There is no credible reason why, or more importantly how, one of ordinary skill in the art would modify the optical waveguide package of the prior art to arrive at such an invention as claimed in the present application.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUNG H PAK whose telephone number is (571)272-2353. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7AM- 5PM.
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.
/SUNG H PAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874