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.
Claims 6 and 14 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.
Claims 6 and 14 both recite “two second L-shaped end-sections” without previously reciting a first L-shaped end-section. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-8, 10, 11 and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication 2023/0251442 to Meadowcroft.
In regards to claim 1, Meadowcroft recites an alignment structure for optical components (Figures 2 & 6) comprising: an aligner (Figure 2) comprising multiple sections joined together to provide a semi-confined open space configured to allow a body of a first optical component [0049] to be loaded into an alignment position to align with a second optical component, the multiple sections comprising: a bottom section (Figure 2) having a front edge facing a part of the semi-confined open space for receiving a shelf extended out of the second optical component; a pair of side sections (Figure 2) respectively joined with the bottom section and separated by a first width of the semi-confined open space to allow the body of the first optical component to be lowered from top (Figure 3A); and a front section joined with the pair of side sections, the front section being configured to be a support bar (208) positioned on a surface of the second optical component [0049] while the shelf and a part of the second optical component are inserted under the support bar in the semi-confined open space and the shelf is used to support the body of the first optical component in the alignment position.
In regards to claim 2, Meadowcroft recites the pair of side sections comprise a top ridge near an outer wall of each side section and a sloped facet down from the top ridge to an inner wall of each side section, wherein the two inner walls of the pair of side sections are separated by the first width. (Figure 4)
In regards to claim 3, Meadowcroft recites the sloped facet on each side section is configured to guide the body of the first optical component into the semi-confined open space until it sits onto the shelf, wherein the body of the first optical component has a width smaller than the first width.
In regards to claim 5, Meadowcroft recites the pair of side sections comprises two first L-shaped end-sections joined with the front section, the two first L-shaped end-sections providing a stop for the body of the first optical component to keep a clearance gap from the first optical component in the alignment position to the second optical component. (Figure 3B)
In regards to claim 6, Meadowcroft recites the pair of side sections comprises two L-shaped end-sections separated by a second width narrower than the first width yet sufficient to allow a ribbon fiber to pass out of the semi-confined open space from the body of the first optical component, and provide an extra amount of translational freedom horizontally within the semi-confined open space for the body of the first optical component on the shelf to align with the second optical component.
In regards to claim 7, Meadowcroft recites the aligner is configured to keep itself a clearance gap from both the body of the first optical component and the shelf when the body of the first optical component is in the alignment position on the shelf in the semi-confined open space.
In regards to claim 8, Meadowcroft recites the aligner is a single piece part for aligning a fiber array unit (FAU) connector (302) with a lens (312) at a side edge of a photonic integrated circuit (PIC) chip, the PIC chip having a package bottom from which the shelf is extended out. (Figure 5A)
In regards to claim 10, Meadowcroft recites an apparatus (Figure 6) for aligning a fiber array unit (FAU) connector (302) with a photonic integrated circuit (PIC) [0049, 0072] comprising: an aligner (Figure 2) having a front section, a rear section, and a bottom section respectively joined with two side sections spaced apart by a first distance, the front section and the bottom section being configured to expand a semi-confined open space between the two side sections for receiving a shelf extended out beyond a lens (204) at a side edge of a PIC chip, the shelf having an alignment feature (206) associated with the lens, the front section being configured as a support bar positioned on a surface of the PIC chip, the semi-confined open space between the two side sections allowing a body of the FAU connector to be loaded down from top to sit on the shelf in the semi-confined open space and be aligned with the lens through the alignment feature.
In regards to claim 11, Meadowcroft recites each of the two side sections comprises an inner side facing the semi-confined open space, an outer side opposite to the inner side, a narrow top ridge near the outer side and a sloped facet down from the top ridge to the inner side for guiding the body of the FAU connector down onto the shelf in the semi-confined open space between the two inner sides of the two side sections, the body of the FAU connector having a width equal to or smaller than the first distance. (Figure 4)
In regards to claim 13, Meadowcroft recites the two side sections comprise two first L-shaped end-sections joined with the front section, the two first L-shaped end-sections providing hard stops for the body of the FAU connector to control a distance between a lens of the FAU connector and the lens at the side edge of the PIC chip. (Figure 3B)
In regards to claim 14, the two side sections comprise second L-shaped end-sections spaced apart by a third distance smaller than the first distance yet sufficient for passing a ribbon fiber of the FAU connector loaded on the shelf in the semi-confined open space.
In regards to claim 15, Meadowcroft recites the second L-shaped end-sections and therefore are configured to provide extra amount of translational freedom horizontally within the semi-confined open space for the body of the FAU connector loaded on the shelf to align with the lens at the side edge of the PIC chip.
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.
Claim(s) 16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2023/0251442 to Meadowcroft as applied to claim 10 above.
In regards to claim 16, although Meadowcroft does not expressly recite wherein the alignment feature comprises a pair of V-grooves configured to be matched up by a pair of alignment rods disposed on the body of the FAU connector for establishing optical alignment between the lens of the FAU connector and the lens at the side edge of the PIC chip, V-grooves matched with alignment rods are commonly chosen alignment elements. V-grooves and alignment rods are readily available, easily and commercially formed in optical devices and reliable. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have provided the alignment feature comprises a pair of V-grooves configured to be matched up by a pair of alignment rods disposed on the body of the FAU connector for establishing optical alignment between the lens of the FAU connector and the lens at the side edge of the PIC chip.
In regards to claim 17, although Meadowcroft does not expressly recite the shelf is part of a package structure attached to a bottom of the PIC chip by epoxy, the application of epoxy to secure optical elements is a commonly chosen technique. Furthermore, epoxy is readily available, easily and commercially formed in optical devices and reliable. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have provided the shelf is part of a package structure attached to a bottom of the PIC chip by epoxy.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 9, 12, 18 and 19 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.
In regards to claim 4, the prior art of record fails to disclose or reasonably suggest each side section comprises an edge step in vertical direction relative to the bottom section, the edge step being located at a central region of the inner wall to increase the first width for a section of the semi-confined open space from the central region backward to allow a small amount of rotational freedom horizontally within the semi-confined open space for the body of the first optical component on the shelf to settle at the alignment position in addition to the accompanying features of the independent claim and any intervening claims.
In regards to claim 9, the prior art of record fails to disclose or reasonably suggest a support frame to provide respective surfaces for the aligner and the shelf to bond to and a clamshell lid to cover and hold the body of the FAU connector seating in the alignment position on the shelf by latching with the support frame, the support frame being in a floating state attached to a package structure of the PIC chip in addition to the accompanying features of the independent claim and any intervening claims.
In regards to claim 12, the prior art of record fails to disclose or reasonably suggest the inner side comprises an edge step in vertical direction located at a central region of the side section, the edge step increasing the first distance to a second distance for a partial section of the semi-confined open space from the central region to the rear section to allow a small amount of rotational freedom horizontally within the semi-confined open space for the body of the FAU connector on the shelf to align with the lens at the side edge of the PIC chip in addition to the accompanying features of the independent claim and any intervening claims.
In regards to claims 18-19, the prior art of record fails to disclose or reasonably suggest a frame to provide respective support surfaces for the bottom section and the shelf to bond to, the frame being in a floating state attached to a package structure of the PIC chip in addition to the accompanying features of the independent claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 20 is allowed. the prior art of record fails to disclose or reasonably suggest a method for aligning a fiber array unit (FAU) connector with a photonic integrated circuit (PIC) comprising: attaching a frame to a package structure of a PIC chip to provide support surfaces in a floating state, one of the support surfaces being configured to be bonded by epoxy to a pair of shelve each with an alignment feature respectively associated two lenses of the PIC chip; placing a pair of aligners onto the frame, each aligner comprising a front section and a bottom section respectively joined with two side sections spaced apart by a first distance to provide a semi-confined open space configured to receive one of the pair of shelve as the front section positioned on a top surface of the PIC chip, one of the support surfaces of the frame being configured to be bonded by epoxy to the bottom section of each aligner; loading a pair of bodies of two FAU connectors respectively onto the pair of shelve in the semi-confined open spaces of the pair of aligners, each body being provided with a small amount of rotational freedom horizontally in the corresponding semi-confined open space and translational freedom along a direction in parallel with the two side sections; adjusting each body of FAU connector to an alignment position on the corresponding shelf via the alignment feature to achieve optical alignment between a lens of the FAU connector and one of the two lenses of the PIC chip; curing the epoxy between each shelf and the corresponding one of the support surfaces to secure the shelf with the body of the FAU connector at the alignment position; and curing the epoxy between each aligner and the corresponding one of the support surfaces of the frame to fix a position for the aligner to ensure a no-contact clearance between the body of the FAU connector and the aligner in addition to the accompanying features of the independent claim.
References Cited
The references cited made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. None of the documents cited by the Examiner discloses or reasonably suggests the allowable subject matter discussed above.
The documents submitted by applicant in the Information Disclosure Statement have been considered and made of record. Note attached copy of form PTO-1449. None of the references submitted by Applicant discloses or reasonably suggest the allowable subject matter discussed above.
Inventorship
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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TINA M WONG whose telephone number is (571)272-2352. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:30.
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, Uyen-Chau Le can be reached at (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 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.
/TINA WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights