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 filed 3/2/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has amended prior limitations of claims 2-3 into independent form in claim 1. Applicant’s remarks proceed to distinguish over the prior art by pointing out differences in the technology with steps of forming the waveguides. Similarly, the arguments discuss the solution discharge module that discharges a solution moving from one position to another to draw a wire. While Examiner understands the importance of these aspects, the current claims recite structure required in an apparatus claim. The intermediate steps, while appearing novel, cannot be imparted into an apparatus claim. It appears these claims might be better suited written as method claims.
Should these claims remain as apparatus claims, the option may be better to recite language that each component is configured to perform these functions followed with supporting structure to enable the function. For example, language similar to, “a solution discharge module configured to discharge an uncured, polymer optical wire”. Further, independent claim 1 requires no completed, cured wire. Newly amended claim 1 also removes the mention of an UV emitting component for the curing of the wire. It appears this functional claim has been reintroduced as dependent claim 11. Similar issues to the above are present because this claim recites steps or functions of a control module.
Since the structure of the prior art is present, it appears to anticipate the same or similar components in Applicant’s claims even though the functions performed may differ.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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) 1-7 and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 10,162,112 to Sutherland.
Sutherland discloses in the abstract and figures 4-5 and 14B, an apparatus for manufacturing an optical wire, the apparatus comprising:
A wire forming module (150) configured to form an optical wire (406) for optically coupling a first point to a second point (left section to bottom in figure 14B);
An image acquisition module (480) configured to acquire an image of the optical wire;
A curing module (actinic light 122) to cure the optical wire; and
A control module (controlled with a micropositioning system not shown; column 14, line 33),
Wherein the control module checks position (it is noted that functions and method claims are not positive limitations in an apparatus claim).
As to prior claim 2-3 limitations now included in claim 1, a liquid (adhesive) is discharged, moved and cured with UV (Specification description for figure 5A) and a link potion (100) is disclosed.
As to claim 4, the steps and method of discharging a solution is not a positive limitation in an apparatus claim.
As to claim 5, a camera (480) is disclosed.
As to claims 6-7, these claims recite specific function steps that are not positive limitations in an apparatus claim.
Claim 9 is a method claim that provide for the use of the above structure. Since the structure is disclosed, the basic formation and use of the device as claimed would be anticipated. The prior art discloses the optical link portions and provides for UV curing.
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.
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) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sutherland.
Sutherland discloses the invention as claimed except for a housing to hold a camera and a filter to filter reflected light. It is noted that Sutherland discloses that the measurement system is used to determine precise locations of waveguide structures with a vision system for measuring back illumination.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to recognize that such a system would inherently be provided a control system to control these back reflections to optimize a precise location of the waveguiding structure and to house the components in an integrated housing.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2022/0404546 (optical wire bonding; figure 5).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Eric K Wong whose telephone number is (571)272-2363. The examiner can normally be reached M-Tu, Th-F 8A-6P.
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.
ERIC K. WONG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2874
/Eric Wong/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights