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 .
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 21-33 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the elected invention originally claimed (i.e., elected group Ib {in 4/27/26 Response}, containing original claims 1, 3-5; treated as an election without traverse since no substantive reasons were given for the 2/26/26 restriction requirement {RR} as being incorrect) for the following reasons: new independent claim 21 contains the limitation(s) “overlying a first passive optical device over both the first optical package and the alignment die” wherein forms of “overlies”/”overly” found in non-elected original claims 13-16 are substantially similar to “overlying”/”over” and none of these limitations are found in original elected claims 1, 3-5. Moreover, new independent claim 21 does not contain the distinguishing feature(s) of elected group Ib involving “tiers/mirrors”.
Additionally, new independent claim 27 contains 3rd alignment features/structures found in non-elected original claims 2, 6-7. Also, new independent claim 27 does not contain the distinguishing feature(s) of elected group Ib involving “tiers/mirrors”.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 21-33 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 is is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dong et al. (US 20220155526; “Dong”).
Regarding claim 1, Dong teaches a method of manufacturing an optical device, the method comprising: placing an alignment die 10 (e.g., interposer wafer/die 10 serves to align via at least cavity/trench 15 formed at shoulders 17 in fig. 5A and/or solder bumps 14; figs. 1B, 2B, 2C, 5A) adjacent to a first optical package 40 (e.g., fig. 5A; electrical signals pass through alignment die 10 to the solder bumps of PIC optical package 40); and attaching a first passive optical device 50 (e.g., fig. 5A) to both the alignment die 10 and the first optical package {OP} 40 (e.g., fig. 5A; 1st passive optical device {POD} 50 is at least directly attached to alignment die 10 via solder bumps and 1st POD 50 is at least indirectly attached to 1st OP 40 since element 40 and element 50 are each attached to alignment die {AD} 10 via at least solder bumps; also 1st POD 50 is at least optically attached/coupled 1st OP 40), wherein a first alignment structure of the first passive optical device 50 is conjoined with a second alignment structure of the alignment die 10 (e.g., fig. 2C illustrates how a 1st alignment structure 54 of element 50 is attached to a 2nd alignment structure 14/18 of element 10; figs. 2B, 5A).
Thus claim 1 is met.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art, either alone or in combination, does not disclose or render obvious the first passive optical device comprises a first tier of first optical components and a first mirror in combination with the rest of claim 3.
It is noted that claim 3 is allowable because the unique combination of each and every specific element stated in the claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mr. Michael Mooney whose telephone number is 571-272-2422. The examiner can normally be reached during weekdays, M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Uyen-Chau Le can be reached on 571-272-2397. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Center. Should you have questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). For checking the filing status of an application, please refer to <https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/checking-application-status/check-filing-status-your-patent-application>.
/MICHAEL P MOONEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights