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 .
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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06 April, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on 06 April, 2026 has been fully considered and entered. In response to the amendment, the drawings objection is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06 April, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the limitation “at least one of the first end and the second end lying at an edge separation distance of 2 to 25 µm from the transmitting side surface or receiving side surface, respectively”: Applicant has argued that the word respectively “naturally means that in the case of the transmitting side surface, the end in question is the end of the side of, i.e. closer to, the transmitting side surface; and in the case of the receiving side surface, the end in question is the end at the side of, i.e., closer to, the receiving side surface. Thus amended claim 1 definitely specifies that 1) the end of the waveguide closer to the receiving side surface is at a separation distance of 2 to 25 µm from the receiving side surface, and/or 2) the opposite end of the waveguide closer to the transmitting side surface is at a separation distance of 2 to 25 µm from the transmitting side surface.”
Examiner disagrees. Examiner respectfully asserts that respectively means “in the order given” or “separately”. Based on the first definition (addressing its meaning from the grammatical issues addressed in the 112(b) rejection below), the claim could read as requiring: a) the first end lying at an edge separation distance of 2 to 25 µm from the transmitting side surface; and/or b) the second end lying at an edge separation distance of 2 to 25 µm from the receiving side surface.
Therefore, the claim cannot unambiguously provide the meaning that Applicant has suggested in the remarks quoted above. Examiner further considers that Applicant’s argument suggests using the term counter to its understood meaning in the art, as the terms intended to be paired (i.e. first end with receiving side surface and second end with transmitting side surface) are listed in the opposite order.
Furthermore, the claim limitation is unclear due to the inconsistency between “at least one of”, “and”, and “or” in (emphasis added) “at least one of the first end and the second end lying at an edge separation distance of 2 to 25 µm from the transmitting side surface or receiving side surface, respectively”. This combination could lead one of ordinary skill in the art to compare 4 possible edge separation distances: between the first end and either of the transmitting side surface or the receiving side surfaces, respectively (separately) and/or between the second end and either of the transmitting side or the receiving side surface, respectively (separately).
Therefore, the argument is unpersuasive.
Regarding claim 18: Applicant argues that they consider claim 18 to be definite because “An array” and “a plurality” as presented in claim 18 are not intended to be specified as additional elements but to be interpreted as multiplication of those corresponding elements already specified in claim 13. Examiner considers this argument to be unpersuasive. The claim should make clear that this is what the Applicant means. As claimed, these components may be understood to be additional components separate from those claimed in claim 13, and they also present antecedent basis issues. For example “the at least one second glass coupler body” of claim 18: it is unclear whether the limitations that follow are required to be present in the second glass coupler body defined in claim 13?
Regarding prior art rejections: Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-10 and 12-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claims 1-10 and 12-20 are 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.
Regarding claims 1 and 13: The limitation “at least one of the first end and the second end lying at an edge separation distance of 2 to 25 µm from the transmitting side surface or receiving side surface, respectively” renders the claim indefinite. As discussed above, “respectively” could be interpreted to mean a) the first end lying at an edge separation distance of 2 to 25 µm from the transmitting side surface; and/or b) the second end lying at an edge separation distance of 2 to 25 µm from the receiving side surface. Due to the multiple interpretations of the word “respectively”, it would be unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art what this claim limitation requires.
Additionally, Applicant’s remarks (see page 11) filed on 06 April, 2026 suggest an interpretation of respectively that is counter to its understood meaning in the art, since the structures intended to be paired are given in the opposite order. Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “respectively” in claims 1 and 13, as asserted by Applicant, is used by the claim to mean “opposite the order given” while the accepted meaning is “in the order given.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
Furthermore, the claim limitation is unclear due to the inconsistency between “at least one of”, “and”, and “or” in (emphasis added) “at least one of the first end and the second end lying at an edge separation distance of 2 to 25 µm from the transmitting side surface or receiving side surface, respectively”. This combination could lead one of ordinary skill in the art to compare 4 possible edge separation distances: between the first end and either of the transmitting side surface or the receiving side surfaces, respectively (separately) and/or between the second end and either of the transmitting side or the receiving side surface, respectively (separately).
If applicant intends to claim the edge separation distance between the first end and the receiving side surface is between 2 and 25 microns and/or the edge separation distance between the second end and the transmitting side surface is between 2 and 25 microns, they should be written out separately to avoid any ambiguity and/or usage of the term “respectively” counter to its definition.
However, for the purpose of examination, it is interpreted according to applicant’s suggestion, i.e. 1) the end of the waveguide closer to the receiving side surface is at a separation distance of 2 to 25 µm from the receiving side surface, and/or 2) the opposite end of the waveguide closer to the transmitting side surface is at a separation distance of 2 to 25 µm from the transmitting side surface. However, the claim needs to be amended to make the meaning clear.
Regarding claim 13: Additionally, “the first optical coupling element and the second optical component being positioned with the converging member and the transmitting facet facing each other” is unclear because the converging member is claimed to be part of the first optical coupling element and the transmitting facet is claimed to be part of the first optical component, so it is unclear how the placement of the first optical coupling element and the second optical component is related to the converging member and the transmitting facet facing each other. For the purpose of examination, this is interpreted as requiring the converging member of the first optical coupling element and the transmitting facet of the first optical component to be facing each other.
Regarding claim 18: Claim 18 depends on claim 13, which defines a converging member, an output facet, and a coupling waveguide, as well as an array of a plurality of converging members, a plurality of output facets, and a plurality of coupling waveguides. Claim 13 also requires a second glass coupler body, and claim 18 requires at least one second glass coupler body, wherein the second glass coupler body has a plurality of elements. The redefining of a plurality of components with the same name is unclear because it creates antecedent basis issues and it is unclear whether they are additional components or a multiplication of those corresponding elements already defined in claim 13, as applicant suggests in remarks filed on 06 April, 2026.
Claims 2-10, 12, and 14-20 inherently contain all of the deficiencies of any base or intervening claims from which they depend.
Note: The following rejections are based upon the claims as best understood by Examiner.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fortusini et al. (US 2018/0172905; hereinafter Fortusini ‘905).
Regarding claim 1: Fortusini ‘905 teachesAn optical coupling element (Fig. 5B, body 21 of glass support member 20) configured to be positioned between and optically couple a first optical component, comprising a semiconductor laser (Fig. 5B, photonic device 240 is disclosed to be a VCSEL, a type of semiconductor laser, in paragraph 0093; while disclosed by Fortusini ‘905, the first optical component is considered to be external to the optical coupling element and therefore outside of the scope of the claim; the optical coupling element is capable of coupling to a first optical component, as evidenced by the fact that it is coupled to a VCSEL), configured to transmit a light beam, and a second optical component configured to receive light of the light beam (any component downstream of the waveguide can be considered a second component, however this is considered to be external to the optical coupling element, and the optical coupling element is considered to be capable of optically coupling to a second component), the optical coupling element comprising a glass coupler body (Fig. 5B, body 21 of glass support member 20 is considered to be a glass coupler body) having a receiving side surface (Fig. 5B, top surface 22) and an opposite transmitting side surface (best represented in Fig. 1B, end 28), the glass coupler body comprising: a converging member (Fig. 5B, lens 420) configured to reduce divergence of light of the light beam entering the glass coupler body via the receiving side surface (the depicted lens is configured to do this by Snell’s law); and a coupling waveguide (Fig. 5B, waveguide 70) extending within the glass coupler body between the converging member and an output facet on the transmitting side surface and being configured to transmit light of the light beam from the converging member to the output and a second end at the side of the transmitting side surface (the waveguide is configured to do this).
While Fortusini ‘905 fails to disclose “at least one of the first end and the second end lying at an edge separation distance of 2 to 25 microns from the transmitting side surface or receiving side surface, respectively”, Fortusini does teach that the thickness of the glass support member is between 50 microns and 100 microns (see paragraph 0052). Additionally, Fortusini teaches that when laser written waveguides are created too close to the surface, they suffer from shape deformation and variation in refractive index (see paragraph 0121). Finally, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it is desirable to have a small distance between the end of the waveguide and the receiving side surface, since the free propagation of light over a long distance will create loss. For all of these reasons, the distance between the first end and the receiving side surface is a result effective variable. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to form the device wherein the edge separation distance between the receiving side surface and the first end is in a range of 2 to 25 microns in order to optimize for loss, spatial constraints, and avoiding creating aberrations on the surface while performing the laser writing, 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), and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
Regarding claim 2: Modified Fortusini ‘905 teachesThe optical coupling element as defined in claim 1 (as applied above), wherein the converging member comprises a lens (Fig. 5B, lens 420; additionally, see paragraph 0096).
Regarding claim 3: Modified Fortusini ‘905 teachesThe optical coupling element as defined in claim 1 (as applied above), wherein the converging member forms a local extension outward of the receiving side surface (Fig. 5B shows this; additionally, see paragraph 0096).
Regarding claim 5: Modified Fortusini ‘905 teaches the optical coupling element defined in claim 1, as applied above. While Fig. 5B shows only a small portion of the waveguide 70, it is part of the cantilever structure, which is a curved structure (see, e.g. Figs. 4a-c, 5a). In order to follow the curve of the cantilever as suggested by other embodiments, 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 coupling waveguide to have a curved section such as the one shown in Fig. 5a. and other embodiments show the larger cantilever structure is curved, as are the waveguides contained within it (see, e.g. Figs. 4a-c, 5a). In order to follow the curve of the cantilever as suggested by other embodiments, 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 coupling waveguide to have a curved section such as the one shown in Fig. 5a.
Regarding claim 7: Modified Fortusini ‘905 teachesThe optical coupling element as defined in claim 1 (as applied above), wherein the coupling waveguide is configured to have a straight waveguide section having a substantially constant cross-section (Fig. 5B shows a section of the coupling waveguide that is considered to be a straight waveguide section having a substantially constant cross-section).
Regarding claim 8: Modified Fortusini ‘905 teaches the optical coupling element as defined in claim 1, as applied above, wherein the converging member has an optical axis (402) and a receiving interface (interface of 420) having a radius of curvature R at the optical axis (since it is curved at the optical axis, it inherently has a radius of curvature R at the optical axis). While Fortusini ‘905 fails to teach that the coupling waveguide lies at a converging member separation distance of 0.5 to 1.5 R, as defined along the optical axis, from the receiving interface, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to optimize the device by providing a converging member separation distance in this range in order to minimize loss in the device, since the light beam will be most focused around these values, and 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).
Regarding claim 9: Modified Fortusini ‘905 teaches The optical coupling element as defined in claim 1 (as applied above), wherein the glass coupler body has a cavity therein (as shown in multiple embodiments showing more of the cantilever structure than shown in Fig. 5B, the cantilever is bent, including the structure shown in Fig. 4a, where the region that the reference character 60 points to is considered a cavity in the glass coupler body due to the bending; similar cavities are also seen where 10 points in Fig. 4a, where 60 and 50 point in Fig. 4B, where 60 points in Fig. 4c; it is understood that the cantilever of the embodiment of Fig. 5B also includes bends, from which cavities would be defined such as those shown in Figs. 4a-c) dividing the coupling waveguide into a first waveguide part between the cavity and the converging member, and a second waveguide part between the cavity and the transmitting side surface (the coupling waveguide can be considered to be divided between a first waveguide part and a second waveguide part as claimed).
Claims 13-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fortusini et al. (US Patent No. 10,684,419; hereinafter Fortusini ‘419) in view of Chen et al. (US 2018/0372956; hereinafter Chen).
Regarding claim 13: Fortusini ‘419 discloses an optical coupling arrangement (Fig. 20) comprising: An optical coupling arrangement (Fig. 20) comprising: a first optical coupling element (Fig. 20, first waveguide connector element 2010A) configured to be positioned between and optically couple a first optical component (the first waveguide connector element 2010A receives input light; whatever light it receives is considered to come from a first optical component) configured to transmit a light beam, and a second optical component (the second waveguide connector element 2010B outputs light; therefore whatever component receives the output light is considered a second optical component configured to receive light of the light beam and having a second receiving facet) configured to receive light of the light beam, the first optical coupling element comprising a glass coupler body (see col. 18, lines 26-48 and Fig. 20, first waveguide connector element 2010A is a glass coupler body) having a receiving side surface (see annotated Fig. 20, first receiving side surface) and an opposite transmitting side surface (see annotated Fig. 20, first transmitting side surface), the glass coupler body comprising: a converging member configured to reduce divergence of light of the light beam entering the glass coupler body via the receiving side surface (see Fig. 19B, lens 1912), and to reduce the beam divergence of light of the light beam transmitted by the first optical component (see col. 12, lines 13-20; col. 9, line 60-col. 10, line 30; the tapered structure of lenses 1912 will inherently reduce the beam divergence of light of the light beam transmitted by the first optical component); and a coupling waveguide (see Fig. 19B, waveguide 1911) extending within the glass coupler body between the converging member and an output facet on the transmitting side surface (Fig. 19B shows this) and being configured to transmit light of the light beam from the converging member to the output facet (the optical coupling structure is configured to do this since it is capable of performing this function), the coupling waveguide having a first end at the side of the receiving side surface and a second end at the side of the transmitting side surface (see Fig. 19B, the waveguide 1911 has two ends, i.e. a first end at the side of the receiving side surface and a second end at the side of the transmitting side surface).
Fortusini ‘419 further disclosesa second glass coupler body (see col. 18, lines 26-48 and Fig. 20, second waveguide connector element 2010B is a glass coupler body) having a second receiving side surface (see annotated Fig. 20) and an opposite second transmitting side surface (see annotated Fig. 20), the second glass coupler body comprising a second coupling waveguide (see Fig. 19B, waveguide 1911) extending within the second glass coupler body between a second input facet on the second receiving side surface and a second output facet on the second transmitting side surface (see Fig. 19B, the waveguide 1911 extends within the glass coupler body between a second input facet on the second receiving side surface and a second output facet on the second transmitting side surface) and being configured to transmit light of the light beam from the second input facet to the second output facet (the cited structure is capable of performing this function so it is considered to be configured to transmit light of the light beam from the second input facet to the second output facet); an optical fiber (Fig. 20, any of optical fibers 2030) connected to, and optically coupling, the output facet of the first optical coupling element and the second input facet;
Fortusini ‘419 fails to teach: a first optical component, comprising a semiconductor laser and having a transmitting facet, configured to transmit a light beam with a beam divergence corresponding to a first numerical aperture out of the transmitting facet; and the second optical component with a second numerical aperture, having a receiving facet, configured to receive light of the light beam via the receiving facet.
Therefore, Fortusini ‘419 also fails to teach “the first optical coupling element and the second optical component being positioned with the converging member and the transmitting facet facing each other, and the second glass coupler body and the second optical component being positioned with the second output facet and the receiving facet facing each other, to optically couple, with a coupling efficiency, the first optical component and the second optical component by transmitting the light beam to the second output facet and further to the receiving facet”.
However, Fortusini ‘419 does suggest using the disclosed waveguide connector elements with semiconductor lasers (see col. 1, lines 43-53; hybrid silicon lasers are semiconductor lasers). In order to couple light from a semiconductor laser, as suggested by Fortusini ‘419, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a semiconductor laser in the optical coupling arrangement, the semiconductor laser having a transmitting facet, configured to transmit a light beam with a beam divergence corresponding to a first numerical aperture out of the transmitting facet.
Additionally, Chen, also related to optical coupling arrangements including waveguides and converging members (see, e.g. Fig. 5), taught providing such an optical coupling arrangement between a first and second optical component, wherein the second optical component (Fig. 5, fiber 504a) has a receiving facet configured to receive light and having a second numerical aperture. In order to use the light from the optical coupling arrangement for further signal transmission and processing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further include a second optical component having a receiving facet configured to receive light and a second numerical aperture, since it was taught by Chen. In making the modification, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to position the components such that the converging member and the transmitting facet face each other, and such that the second output facet and the receiving facet face each other, in order to optically couple, with a coupling efficiency, the first optical component and the second optical component by transmitting the light beam to the second output facet and further to the receiving facet, since this arrangement would allow for a continuous light path through the stated components, and since it was taught by Chen (see Fig. 5).
While Fig. 19B does show a gap between the first end of the waveguide and the receiving side surface, Fortusini ‘419 fails to teach at least one of the first end and the second ends lying at an edge separation distance of 2 to 25 microns from the transmitting or receiving side surface. Fortusini ‘419 additionally teaches that the waveguide may be laser written (see col. 18, lines 25-35). However, Florian Lohse, also related to laser writing waveguides into glass substrates, teaches that the distance a laser written waveguide is spaced from the substrate is a result effective variable since it is preferably less than 10 microns to avoid high loss, but if it is too close to the surface, the high temperature damages the surface of the glass and introduces scattering (see col. 9, line 63-col. 10, line 2). Before the effective filing date of the present invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to form the first glass body with at least one of the first end and the second ends lying at an edge separation distance of 2 to 25 microns from the transmitting or receiving side surface, 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), and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
Regarding claim 14: Modified Fortusini ‘419 teaches the optical coupling arrangement as defined in claim 13, as applied above. While Fortusini ‘419 fails to disclose that the second numerical aperture is smaller than the first numerical aperture, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to optimize the device by making the second numerical aperture to be smaller than the first numerical aperture in order to minimize loss in the device, 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).
Regarding claim 15: Modified Fortusini ‘419 teachesThe optical coupling arrangement as defined in claim 13, as applied above, wherein the optical fiber is connected to at least one of the output facet of the glass coupler body of the first optical coupling element and the second input facet by a connector element mounted on the transmitting side surface of the glass coupler body of the first optical coupling element and/or on the second receiving side surface, respectively (see Fortusini ‘419, col. 18, lines 45-47; UV-curable adhesive mounted on the optical fiber ends, providing connection to the waveguide connector elements 2010A, 2010B).
Regarding claim 16: Modified Fortusini ‘419 teachesThe optical coupling arrangement as defined in claim 13 (as applied above), wherein the first optical component comprises an active optical component (the semiconductor laser is an active optical element).
Regarding claim 18: Modified Fortusini ‘419 teaches the optical coupling arrangement as defined in claim 13, as applied above.
Fortusini ‘419 further disclosesat least one second glass coupler body (interpreted as the second glass coupler body defined in claim 13); the glass coupler body of the first optical coupling element comprises an array of a plurality of converging members (all embodiments showing a top view of the connector elements show that the connector elements include a plurality of lenses, see Figs. 1, 2b, 3b, 5, 6, 7a, 10-12, 15) and a plurality of coupling waveguides (these figures also show that the connector elements include a plurality of coupling waveguides between the converging members and a plurality of output facets on the transmitting side surface) between the converging members and a plurality of output facets on the transmitting side surface; the at least one second glass coupler body comprises a plurality of second input facets (see Fig. 20, plurality of input facets where fibers 2030 are connected to second glass coupler body 2010B) on the second receiving side surface(s) thereof, and a plurality of second coupling waveguides (all embodiments showing a top view of the connector elements show that the connector elements include a plurality of coupling waveguides, see Figs. 1, 2b, 3b, 5, 6, 7a, 10-12, 15) between the input facets and a plurality of second output facets on the second transmitting side surface(s) thereof (these figures also show that the connector elements include a plurality of output facets), the second output facets and the receiving facets facing each other (this arrangement is shown in Fig. 20); and the optical coupling arrangement comprises a plurality of optical fibers connected to, and optically coupling, the output facets of the glass coupler body of the first optical coupling element and the second input facets (see fibers 2030 in Fig. 20).
Fortusini ‘419 fails to teach that the first optical component comprises an array of a plurality of transmitting facets, and the optical coupling arrangement comprises at least one second optical component comprising a plurality of receiving facets. However, this is considered to be a mere duplication of parts, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the Fortusini ‘419 device by providing the first optical component with an array of a plurality of transmitting facets and at least one second optical component comprising a plurality of receiving facets, in order to transmit and receive a plurality of light signals through the optical coupling arrangement. It has been held that mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 19: Modified Fortusini ‘419 teaches the optical coupling arrangement as defined in claim 18, as applied above. Fortusini ‘419 fails to disclose at least two second glass coupler bodies each comprising at least one of the plurality of second coupling waveguides, and at least two optical compoennts each comprising at least one of the plurality of receiving facets. However, the modified Fortusini device contains a plurality of second coupling waveguides coupling to a corresponding plurality of receiving facets. Dividing the second glass coupler body and the second optical component, each into two such that they each contain at least one of the plurality of second coupling waveguides and at least one of the plurality of receiving facets, respectively, would amount to constructing formerly integral structures in various elements, which involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
Regarding claim 20: Modified Fortusini ‘419 teaches the optical coupling arrangement as defined in claim 18, as applied above. In another embodiment, Fortusini ‘419 teaches combining a plurality of optical fibers into a cable (see Fig. 5). In order to better organize the fibers in the modified Fortusini ‘419 device, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the Fortusini ‘419 device by incorporating at least two optical fibers of the plurality of optical fibers within an optical fiber cable, since it was known to provide multiple optical fibers in an optical fiber cable.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fortusini et al. (US Patent No. 10,684,419; hereinafter Fortusini ‘419) in view of Chen et al. (US 2018/0372956; hereinafter Chen) and further in view of Van Steenberge et al. (US Patent No. 9,529,154; hereinafter Van Steenberge).
Modified Fortusini ‘419 teaches the optical coupling arrangement as defined in claim 13. Modified Fortusini ‘419 fails to teach that at least one of the first optical component and the second optical component comprises a waveguide of a photonic integrated circuit. However, Van Steenberge, also related to optical coupling arrangements using laser written waveguides, teaches that optical couplers including laser written waveguides can be used to couple light between waveguides of photonic integrated circuits (see col. 3, lines 22-33) and external devices including semiconductor lasers (see col. 2, lines 45-52). In applications where it is desirable to couple light from an external semiconductor laser to a photonic integrated circuit, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the Fortusini ‘419 device by using a waveguide of a photonic integrated circuit as the second optical component, in order to provide low loss coupling to the photonic integrated circuit.
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fortusini et al. (US 2018/0172905; hereinafter Fortusini ‘905) in view of Brusberg (US 2018/0217326; hereinafter Brusberg).
Regarding claim 4: Modified Fortusini ‘905 teaches the optical coupling element as defined in claim 1, as applied above. Modified Fortusini ‘905 fails to teach that the coupling waveguide is configured to narrow towards the output facet. However, Brusberg, also related to glass optical couplers including waveguides (see abstract), teaches that a glass coupler including a waveguide assembly can include tapers (see paragraph 0054). Since waveguide tapers are known means for changing the mode size of light propagating through a waveguide, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the Fortusini ‘905 device so that the coupling waveguide is configured to narrow towards the output facet in applications where it is desirable to output a beam of a smaller size than the input beam.
Regarding claim 6: Modified Fortusini ‘905 teaches the optical coupling element as defined in claim 1, as applied above. Fortusini ‘905 fails to teach a curved section narrowing towards the output facet. However, while Fig. 5B shows only a small portion of the waveguide 70, it is part of the cantilever structure, which is a curved structure (see, e.g. Figs. 4a-c, 5a). In order to follow the curve of the cantilever as suggested by other embodiments, 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 coupling waveguide to have a curved section such as the one shown in Fig. 5a. However, Brusberg, also related to glass optical couplers including waveguides (see abstract), teaches that a glass coupler including a waveguide assembly can include tapers (see paragraph 0054). Since waveguide tapers are known means for changing the mode size of light propagating through a waveguide, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the Fortusini ‘905 device so that the coupling waveguide is configured to have a curved section narrowing towards the output facet in applications where it is desirable to output a beam of a smaller size than the input beam.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fortusini et al. (US 2018/0172905; hereinafter Fortusini ‘905) in view of Hiramatsu (US Patent No. 6,907,173; hereinafter Hiramatsu).
Modified Fortusini ‘905 teaches the optical coupling element as defined in claim 1, as applied above. Fortusini ‘905 fails to teach that an intermediate waveguide part of at least two coupling waveguides form a joint waveguide. However, Hiramatsu, also related to optical coupling devices including waveguides (see abstract and col. 1, lines 1-30), teaches that by providing at least two coupling waveguides having an intermediate waveguide part forming a joint waveguide allows signals to be split and emitted and thus enables the intended uses to be expanded (see col. 17, lines 10-25 and Fig. 16). In order to expand the intended uses of the Fortusini ‘905 device, including splitting and directing signals to different components, switching, etc. , it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the optical coupling element with an intermediate part of at least two coupling waveguides forming a joint waveguide, since it was previously taught by Hiramatsu.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kirsten D Endresen whose telephone number is (703)756-1533. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday.
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.
/KIRSTEN D. ENDRESEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2874
/THOMAS A HOLLWEG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights