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.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 26 November, 2025 has been fully considered and entered. In response to the claim amendments, rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 and some rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are withdrawn. Outstanding and new rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are detailed below.
Response to Arguments
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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 328 (see Fig. 2; appears to correspond to second ends 338 described in paragraph 0183). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-20 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: Claims 1 and 13 recite “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, at least one of the first end and the second end lying at an edge separation distance of 2 to 25 um from the transmitting side surface or receiving side surface, respectively.” This is unclear for several reasons. First, it is unclear what is meant by “the side of the receiving side surface” and “the side of the receiving side surface”. If applicant means that the first end is located closer to the receiving side surface than the transmitting side surface and the second end is located closer to the transmitting side surface than the receiving side surface, this is an unclear way to say it because the side of the receiving/transmitting side surfaces could also be understood to mean that the respective first/second end of the waveguide is located on the receiving/transmitting side surface. Perhaps it would be clearer to identify the input end and output end of the waveguide in the claims? Second, it is unclear what possible combinations are included in the “at least one of the first end and the second end lying at an edge separation distance of 2 to 25 um from the transmitting side surface or receiving side surface, respectively.” Does Applicant mean at least one of:
the first end lying at an edge separation distance of 2 to 25 microns from the transmitting side surface; or
the second end lying at an edge separation distance of 2 to 25 microns from the receiving side surface?
Or does the claim also allow at least one of the above or:
the first end lying at an edge separation distance of 2 to 25 microns from the receiving side surface; or
the second end lying at an edge separation distance of 2 to 25 microns from the transmitting side surface?
Since the claim is unclear as to which combinations are included, the Examiner looked to the disclosure for clarity. Fig. 2 shows edge separation distances 334 and 336, which are measured between the first end (335) and the receiving side surface (332), and the second end (338/328) and the transmitting side surface (337), respectively (corresponding to options (c) and (d) outlined above). For the purpose of examination, the Examiner is interpreting this unclear claim limitation to require at least one of the edge separation distances 334 and 336, as depicted in Fig. 2, to be between 2 and 25 microns.
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. It is therefore unclear if the array of a plurality of converging members and plurality of waveguides between the converging members and output facets are additional required elements or if they are the same as any or all of those defined in claim 13.
Regarding claims 2-10, 12, and 14-20: Dependent 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, 7, 9, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pezeshki et al. (US 2020/0411587; hereinafter Pezeshki).
Regarding claim 1: Pezeshki disclosesAn optical coupling element (Fig. 2, optical coupling element including etched mirrors, glass coupler body, SiO2 waveguides, and lenses) configured to be positioned between and optically couple a first optical component (Fig. 2, CMOS CPU) configured to transmit a light beam, and a second optical component (Fig. 2, Memory) configured to receive light of the light beam, the optical coupling element comprising a glass coupler body (Fig. 2, glass coupler) having a receiving side surface (as described in paragraph 0045 with respect to Fig. 2, 45 degree mirrors 233 above microLED of the CMOS CPU is a receiving facet; the 45 degree mirror is best represented in Fig. 6, turning mirror 617) and an opposite transmitting side surface (Fig. 2, 45 degree mirrors 233 above a photodetector 219 of the memory chip), the glass coupler body comprising: a converging member (Fig. 6, microlens 615) configured to reduce divergence of the light beam entering the glass coupler body via the receiving side surface (see the reduced divergence of the light beam entering the glass coupler body in Fig. 6); and a coupling waveguide (Fig. 6, waveguide 619; Fig. 2, SiO2 waveguides) extending within the glass coupler body between the converging member and the output facet on the transmitting side surface and being configured to transmit on the transmitting side surface and being configured to transmit light of the light beam from the converging member to the output facet (the SiO2 waveguides extend within the glass coupler body between the converging member and an output facet of the transmitting side surface and are configured to transmit light of the light beam from the converging member to the output facet), the coupling waveguide having a first end (Fig. 2 shows that the waveguides each have first ends; the waveguide ends are best depicted in Fig. 6, end of waveguide 619) at the side of the receiving side surface and a second end (Fig. 2 shows that the waveguides each have second ends; the waveguide ends are best depicted in Fig. 6, end of waveguide 619, although this is depicting an end on the side of the receiving side surface, Fig. 2 shows a symmetric structure for the first and second ends) at the side of the transmitting side surface, at least one of the first end and the second end lying at an edge separation distance (as shown in Fig. 6, the turning mirror, disclosed in the embodiment of Fig. 2 to be a 45 degree mirror, is in contact with the waveguide end face at one end, and it has a distance equal to the etch depth at the “other end” (I will refer back to this); any distance along this 45 degree mirror is considered to be an edge separation distance, since as Fig. 6 shows, it represents a distance that light travels between the receiving side surface and the end face of the waveguide).
While Pezeshki fails to disclose that the edge separation distance is between 2 to 25 um from the transmitting side surface or the receiving side surface, Pezeshki teaches that the core of the waveguide is typically 4 microns (see paragraph 0044). At minimum, this corresponds to an edge separation distance at the “other end” (as described above) of 4 microns as the etch depth and edge separation distance are 2 legs of a 45-45-90 right triangle. Although it is unclear whether the waveguide 619 is showing only the core or if it is the core and the cladding, it is understood that the etch depth is at least equal to the core thickness, since this allows light to be coupled into the waveguide core. Since 4 microns is a typical thickness for a waveguide core, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to form the 45 degree mirrors by etching at least 4 microns into the waveguide layer, and in doing so they would necessarily obtain the feature wherein the edge separation distance between the first end and the receiving side surface is between 2 and 25 microns.
Regarding claim 2: Modified Pezeshki teachesThe optical coupling element as defined in claim 1 (as applied above, wherein the converging member comprises a lens (Fig. 6, the microlens is a lens).
Regarding claim 3: Modified Pezeshki teaches the optical coupling element as defined in claim 1, as applied above. Pezeshki fails to disclose that the converging member forms a local extension outward of the receiving surface. However, it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to form the converging member integrally with the glass coupler body at the receiving surface. In doing so, the converging member would form a local extension outward of the receiving surface.
Regarding claim 5: Modified Pezeshki teaches the optical coupling element as defined in claim 1, as applied above. In another embodiment (see Fig. 3), Pezeshki teaches coupling waveguides having a curved section (see Fig. 3). The curved sections of the coupling waveguides allow light to be directed along paths including turns. In order to direct light along paths including turns, 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 Pezeshki device by including a curved section in the coupling waveguides based on the teachings of Pezeshki.
Regarding claim 7: Modified Pezeshki 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 straight cross-section (Fig. 2 shows this).
Regarding claim 9: Modified Pezeshki teachesThe optical coupling element as defined in claim 1 (as applied above), wherein the glass coupler body has a cavity therein (see Fig. 6, the ends of the waveguides with the etched mirrors form cavities; in Fig. 2, the mirror facet furthest toward the bottom of the perspective view image, on the right side, labeled 233 and 217, corresponds to one of these cavities) dividing the coupling waveguide into a first waveguide (either of the two waveguides that extend farther right than this etched mirror can be divided into a first waveguide part between the cavity and a converging member, corresponding to the converging member that converges light entering the respective waveguide, and a second waveguide part between the cavity and the transmitting side surface) part between the cavity and the converging member, and a second waveguide part between the cavity and the transmitting side surface.
Regarding claim 12: Modified Pezeshki teachesThe optical coupling element as defined in claim 1 (as applied above), wherein an intermediate waveguide part of at least two coupling waveguides form a joint waveguide (Fig. 2, optical splitter comprises an intermediate waveguide part of at least two coupling waveguides forming a joint waveguide).
Claims 13-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pezeshki et al. (US 2020/0411587; hereinafter Pezeshki) in view of Fortusini et al. (US 10,684,419; hereinafter Fortusini).
Regarding claim 13: Pezeshki disclosesAn optical coupling arrangement comprising: a first optical component (Fig. 2, CMOS CPU) having a transmitting facet (see paragraph 0042 and Fig. 2, micro-LEDs 217 on CMOS CPU have a transmitting face, configured to transmit a light beam), configured to transmit a light beam with a beam divergence corresponding to a first numerical aperture out of the transmitting facet (a micro-LED inherently has a beam divergence and a numerical aperture); a first optical coupling element (Fig. 2, coupler including glass substrate is configured to be positioned between and optically couple a first optical component and a second optical component) configured to be positioned between and optically couple the first optical component configured to transmit a light beam, and a second optical component (see paragraph 0042 and Fig. 2, photodetectors 219 on memory chip) configured to receive light of the light beam, the first optical coupling element comprising a glass coupler body (Fig. 2, glass) having a receiving side surface (Fig. 2, etched mirror above the microLEDs of the CMOS CPU) and an opposite transmitting side surface (Fig. 2, etched mirror above photodetectors of the memory chip), the glass coupler body comprising: a converging member (Fig. 6, microlens 615) configured to reduce divergence of light of the light beam entering the glass coupler body via the receiving side surface (Fig. 6 shows this), and to reduce the beam divergence of light of the light beam transmitted by the first optical component (Fig. 6 shows this); and a coupling waveguide (Fig. 2, SiO2 waveguides) 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 facet (the SiO2 waveguides extend within the glass coupler body between the converging member and an output facet of the transmitting side surface and are configured to transmit light of the light beam from the converging member to the output facet), the coupling waveguide having a first end (Fig. 2 shows that the waveguides each have first ends; the waveguide ends are best depicted in Fig. 6, end of waveguide 619) at the side of the receiving side surface and a second end (Fig. 2 shows that the waveguides each have second ends; the waveguide ends are best depicted in Fig. 6, end of waveguide 619, although this is depicting an end on the side of the receiving side surface, Fig. 2 shows a symmetric structure for the first and second ends) at the side of the transmitting side surface, at least one of the first end and the second end lying at an edge separation distance (as shown in Fig. 6, the turning mirror, disclosed in the embodiment of Fig. 2 to be a 45 degree mirror, is in contact with the waveguide end face at one end, and it has a distance equal to the etch depth at the “other end” (I will refer back to this); any distance along this 45 degree mirror is considered to be an edge separation distance, since as Fig. 6 shows, it represents a distance that light travels between the receiving side surface and the end face of the waveguide).
While Pezeshki fails to disclose that the edge separation distance is between 2 to 25 um from the transmitting side surface or the receiving side surface, Pezeshki teaches that the core of the waveguide is typically 4 microns (see paragraph 0044). At minimum, this corresponds to an edge separation distance at the “other end” (as described above) of 4 microns as the etch depth and edge separation distance are 2 legs of a 45-45-90 right triangle. Although it is unclear whether the waveguide 619 represents only the core or if it is the core and the cladding, it is understood that the etch depth is at least equal to the core thickness, since this allows light to be coupled into the waveguide core. Since 4 microns is a typical thickness for a waveguide core, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to form the 45 degree mirrors by etching at least 4 microns into the waveguide layer, and in doing so they would necessarily obtain the feature wherein the edge separation distance between the first end and the receiving side surface is between 2 and 25 microns.
Pezeshki fails to disclose
a second glass coupler body having a second receiving side surface and an opposite second transmitting side surface, the second glass coupler body comprising a second coupling waveguide 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 and being configured to transmit light of the light beam from the second input facet to the second output facet; an optical fiber connected to, and optically coupling, the output facet of the first optical coupling element and the second input 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; 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 light of the light beam to the second output facet and further to the receiving facet.
However, Fortusini, also related to optical coupling arrangements comprising glass coupler bodies with coupling waveguides (see Figs. 1, 3A-7C, and 8A-20, waveguide connector element; see also Abstract)
a second glass coupler body (see col. 18, lines 26-48 and Fig. 20, first and second waveguide connector elements 2010A and 2010B are glass coupler bodies) having a second receiving side surface (see annotated Fig. 20 below), the second glass coupler body comprising a second coupling waveguide (these are shown in Figs. 1, 3A-8C, and 8A-18A) extending within the second glass coupler (they extend in both waveguide connector elements 2010A and 2010B; col. 18, lines 55-60) 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 from the second input facet to the second output facet (shown in Figs. 1, 3A-8C, and 8A-18A);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 (annotated Fig. 20 shows this, wherein the output facet of the first optical coupling element is on the first transmitting side surface and the second input facet is on the second receiving side surface).
Fortusini teaches that the glass body optical coupler containing waveguides can be used to connect to waveguides on a PIC or to connect to optical fiber ends. It is well known in the art that optical fibers allow optical signals to be carried over large distances. In order to carry an optical signal between two optical components which are separated over a large distance, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the Pezeshki device to include an optical fiber with an optical coupler at each end for connecting to first and second optical components, as taught by Fortusini. Since Pezeshki teaches a configuration wherein the glass coupler is positioned with the output facet and the receiving facet of the second optical component facing each other, it would be obvious to maintain this configuration when making the modification, in order to maintain coupling between the coupler and the second optical component, such that the second glass coupler body and the second optical component are positioned with the second output facet and the receiving facet facing each other, to optically couple, with a coupling efficiency, the first and the second optical components by transmitting light of the light beam to the second output facet and further to the receiving facet.
Annotated Fig. 20:
PNG
media_image1.png
625
558
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14: Modified Pezeshki teaches the optical coupling arrangement as defined in claim 13, as applied above. While Pezeshki 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 Pezeshki 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, 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 Pezeshki teachesThe optical coupling arrangement as defined in claim 13 (as applied above), wherein the first optical component comprises an active optical component (the micro-LED is an active optical component).
Regarding claim 18: Modified Pezeshki teachesThe optical coupling arrangement as defined in claim 13 (as applied above), whereinthe first optical component comprises an array of a plurality of transmitting facets (Fig. 2, the plurality of microLEDs of the CMOS CPU 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 (Fig. 2, the plurality of photodiodes of the memory chip comprises an array of a plurality of receiving facets), and at least one second glass coupler body (as applied above).
Pezeshki further discloses that the glass coupler body of the first optical coupling element comprises a plurality of coupling waveguides between the receiving side surface and the transmitting side surface (see Fig. 2). Pezeshki fails to disclose an array of a plurality of converging members and that the plurality of coupling waveguides extend between the converging members and a plurality of output facets on the transmitting side surface. However, Pezeshki does teach providing a converging member (see Fig. 6, microlens 615) to focus light from a microLED on a CPU, and that doing so can tremendously improve the beam coupling to the waveguide (see paragraph 0055). In order to improve the beam coupling to the plurality of coupling waveguides, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include an array of a plurality of converging members at the surface of the glass coupler body. Additionally, Pezeshki fails to teach that the plurality of output facets of the plurality of coupling waveguides are on a shared transmission side surface. However, in another embodiment (Fig. 3), Pezeshki shows output facets on a shared transmission side surface. In applications where it is desirable for the optical signals to be input and output from opposite facets of the glass coupler, 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 Pezeshki device such that a transmission side surface opposite a receiving side surface includes a plurality of output facets, based on the teachings of Pezeshki.
In making the modification described in the rejection of claim 13, including providing a second glass coupler body, it would have been obvious to provide a second glass coupler body having the same general structure as the first glass coupler body, including a plurality of second input facets on the second receiving side surface(s) thereof, and a plurality of second coupling waveguides between the input facets and a plurality of second output facets on the second transmitting side surface(s) thereof, the second output facets and the receiving facets facing each other, since this would allow the plurality of light signals to propagate from the microLEDs, through first glass coupler body as well as through the second glass coupler body and to the photodiodes of the receiving chip, and since these features are included in the Pezeshki coupler. Additionally, Fortusini teaches that 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 Annotated Fig. 20 above). When making the modification described in the rejection of claim 13, it would have been obvious to provide the plurality of optical fibers, as was taught by Fortusini, in order to allow the plurality of light signals to propagate from the first glass coupler body to the second glass coupler body.
Regarding claim 19: Modified Pezeshki teaches the optical coupling arrangement as defined in claim 18, as applied above. In another embodiment, Pezeshki teaches a glass coupler routing optical signals from one chip to a plurality of different chips (see Fig. 3). In order to route signals to different destinations at longer distances, based on the combined teachings of Pezeshki and Fortusini, 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 Pezeshki device to include at least two second glass coupler bodies each comprising at least one of the plurality of second coupling waveguides, and at least two second optical components each comprising at least one of the plurality of receiving facets.
Regarding claim 20: Modified Pezeshki teaches the optical coupling arrangement as defined in claim 18, as applied above. In another embodiment, Fortusini teaches combining a plurality of optical fibers into a cable (see Fig. 5). In order to better organize the fibers in the modified Pezeshki 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 Pezeshki 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 Pezeshki et al. (US 2020/0411587; hereinafter Pezeshki) in view of Fortusini et al. (US 10,684,419; hereinafter Fortusini) and further in view of Pietambaram et al. (US 2023/0080454; hereinafter Pietambaram).
Modified Pezeshki teaches the optical coupling arrangement as defined in claim 13, as applied above. Pezeshki fails to teach that at least one of the first and second optical components comprises a waveguide of a photonic integrated circuit. However, the memory IC and the CMOS CPU chip are photonic integrated circuits, and it is conventional to include waveguides in photonic integrated circuits in order to guide optical signals, as was taught by Pietambaram (See paragraph 0080). Since it was known in the art, 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 Pezeshki device by including waveguides in the memory chip and/or the CMOS CPU chip, in order to guide optical signals therein. These waveguide would be waveguides of a photonic integrated circuit.
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pezeshki et al. (US 2020/0411587; hereinafter Pezeshki) in view of Brusberg (US 2018/0217326; hereinafter Brusberg).
Regarding claim 4: Modified Pezeshki teaches the optical coupling element as defined in claim 1, as applied above. Pezeshki 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 Pezeshki device so that the coupling waveguide is configured to narrow/taper 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 Pezeshki teaches the optical coupling element as defined in claim 1, as applied above. Pezeshki further teaches, in another embodiment, that the coupling waveguides can include curved sections, in order to direct light along paths including turns (see Fig. 3). In the example of Fig. 3, particularly the perspective view, the waveguides are shown to be continuously curved; therefore any or the entirety of the coupling waveguide can be considered a curved section. Pezeshki fails to teach that the coupling waveguide is configured to have a curved section narrowing toward the output facet. Brusberg, also related to glass optical couplers including waveguides (see abstract), teaches including tapers and bends in the waveguide assemblies (see paragraph 0054). Since it was taught by Pezeshki in a different embodiment, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use coupling waveguides that are curved, in order to direct the light along more complex light paths. Based on the teaching of Brusberg, 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 Pezeshki device by including a taper in the waveguide such that it narrows toward the output facet, in applications where it is desirable to output a beam of a smaller size than the input beam.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pezeshki et al. (US 2020/0411587; hereinafter Pezeshki) in view of Fortusini et al. (US 2018/0172905; hereinafter Fortusini ‘905).
Regarding claim 8: Modified Pezeshki teaches the optical coupling element as defined in claim 1, as applied above. Pezeshki further teaches that the converging member has an optical axis and an interface having a radius of curvature R at the optical axis. Pezeshki fails to teach that the interface with the radius of curvature is the receiving interface and that the first end of 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. However, Fortusini ‘905 teaches an optical coupling including a waveguide and a converging member (see Fig. 5B), wherein the converging member that is integrally formed with the coupler, having a receiving interface with a radius of curvature along the optical axis. In order to form the converging member integrally with the glass coupler, 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 curvature radius on the receiving interface rather than the transmitting interface of the converging member since it was previously taught by Fortusini ‘905. Additionally, while Pezeshki fails to disclose that the first 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).
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 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