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 .
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.
Claim 1 is 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.
Claims 1 and 14 recite the configuring the thickness of either the carrier ship or substrate layer to “allow a waist of a focused light beam to be positioned at the active port without optically interfering with any portion of the carrier chip or substrate layer”.
First, it is unclear how the thickness is configured as no ranges or values are claimed. Secondly, there is no associated structure to enable such a function.
Similarly, there is no defined characteristics of what level or value exists for the recitation of the function that these layers are positioned “without optically interfering”.
Claims 2-13 and 15-19 are rejected on the basis of dependency.
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) 1, 4, 9-14, 16-17, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2013/0223788 to Koos et al.
As to claims 1 and 14, Koos discloses in the abstract and figures 1-5, an optical system comprising an active optical chip optically connected to an optical device via a photonic wire, wherein the optical chip is mounted on a carrier chip, the active optical chip comprising:
A substrate layer (10);
an active layer (4) between the substrate layer and the carrier chip (2 or 3), wherein a major surface of the active layer comprises an edge region (18); and
an active waveguide (50) within the active layer, the active waveguide having an active port closer to the edge region, the active port connected to a first end of the photonic wire (20), wherein the active waveguide is extended in a longitudinal direction from the active port away from active port (50; figure 3);
wherein a thickness of an end of the carrier chip closer to the active port or a thickness of the substrate layer above the edge region is altered (figure 9). Further, figures 3a-3b and 5 show opposing portions with different chip thicknesses.
As to claims 4 and 16, the materials in the prior art conduct heat and therefore would be in thermal contact.
As to claim 9, a convergence angle is greater than 30 degrees (start of cone 30 in figure 1).
As to claims 10, 13 and 17, the components are mounted as claimed in figure 1.
As to claim 12, the method of determining a thickness is not a positive limitation in an apparatus claim. The prior art has a thickness and an edge meeting the structural requirements of this claim.
As to claim 19, an optical fiber is mounted (5; figure 1).
Claim 20 is a method claim that provides the above structure. Since the structure is present, the steps of providing such would be anticipated.
However, Koos fails to explicitly disclose the allowance of a waist of a focused light beam to be positioned at the active port without optically interfering with any portion of the carrier chip or the substrate layer, respectively. As noted in the 35USC112 rejection above, no specifics are recited to this function. Examiner interprets the currently recited claim to have the ability to shape a beam as shown in Koos figure 9 and paragraph 69.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to shape a beam as taught by Koos to minimize interference of the carrier chip or substrate layer in order to reduce
Claim(s) 2-3, 5-8, 15 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koos as applied to claims above, and further in view of US 9,939,578 to Chang et al.
Koos discloses the invention as claimed except for:
Claims 2-3, 7-8, 15 and 18: thickness, distances, edge shapes and power output.
Claims 5-6: additional intermediate conductive layers.
Koos discloses the ability to modulate output light from the bonder (paragraph 50 discloses changing output to alter the wire shape) and to change a phase (paragraph 60). Different contact shapes are also shown in figures 4-5.
It is noted that intermediate layers with conductive surfaces are common in the photonic circuit art so that electrical components may be associated with a chip.
Chang discloses such an intermediate layer and conductive surface arrangement (figures 2A-2B) as well as different thickness heights where wires are bonded.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to alter adjustable characteristics such as the thickness, edge shapes and sizes as in Koos, as well as providing for additional intermediate layers as taught by Chang to optimize chip performance, size and layout.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2023/0072926 (related case).
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 on 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