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 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.
DETAILED ACTION
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 9 – 11, 17 – 19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirose (US 2024/0369787 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hirose discloses (Figs. 4 – 6, 12 – 17, and 19 – 25; Abstract; para. 0037, 0041 – 0051, 0085 – 0100, and 0106 – 0113) a structure comprising (with reference to Figs. 12 – 15):
a photonic receiving unit 10,20,30,60 comprising:
a ferrule receptacle 60 (para. 0079);
a die 20 comprising a waveguide 21 (Fig. 4; “As illustrated in FIG. 4, the optical integrated circuit 20 has a plurality of waveguides 21” at para. 0041); and
a guide pin 63 (para. 0085); and
a detachable fiber array unit 40 (comprising 46,47,F) comprising:
a ferrule housing (with protruding parts 46; “the ferrule 40 has a pair of protruding parts 46 and a pair of guide pin holes (engaging parts) 47” at para. 0079);
an optical fiber F with a part in the ferrule housing (within a fiber insertion hole 42, as shown in Fig. 15; para. 0051); and
an optical feature 30 (an array of lenses L2; Figs. 4, 14, and 15; para. 0044) optically coupled to the optical fiber F, wherein an end of the optical feature on a (left) side of the ferrule housing (Fig. 15); and
a pin hole 47 in the ferrule housing, wherein the detachable fiber array unit 40 is configured to be capable of being coupled to the ferrule receptacle 60 (Figs. 12, 14, and 15), and wherein when the detachable fiber array unit 40 is coupled to the ferrule receptacle 60 (as in Fig. 12), the guide pin 63 comprises a portion disposed in the pin hole 47, and the optical feature L2 is optically coupled to the waveguide 21 (Figs. 4, 14, and 15; “As described above, also in one or more embodiments, when the guide pin hole (engaging part) 47 engages with the guide pin (engaged part) 63, the ferrule 40 is guided to a position in which the first lens L1 and the second lens L2 face each other. That is, when the receptacle 60 holds the ferrule 40, an optical axis of the waveguide 21, an optical axis of the first lens L1, an optical axis of the second lens L2, and an optical axis of the optical fiber F are substantially coincident with each other” at para. 0087).
Hirose discloses a variety of suitable/workable design choices of the ferrule receptacle (50 in Fig. 2; 60 in Fig. 14; 70 in Fig. 16; 80 in Fig. 20). While the embodiment in Fig. 14 has an open-style ferrule receptacle 14, the embodiments in Figs. 16-18 and 20-25 each include a partially-closed-style ferrule receptacle (70 and 80, respectively) that defines a cavity 84 (seen in Figs. 21 and 22) in which a (right) part of the die 20 is disposed and in which the detachable fiber array unit 40 is inserted (as shown in Figs. 21, 24, and 25; “As illustrated in FIGS. 21 and 22, the main body part 81 has a recessed part 84 recessed upward from a lower surface of the main body part 81. The ferrule 40 is accommodated in the recessed part 84” at para. 0109).
A modified embodiment would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the modified embodiment comprising both a partially-closed-style ferrule receptacle defining a cavity (as in Figs. 20 – 25) and alignment pins (as in Fig. 14) at least partially disposed within the partially-closed-style ferrule receptacle. Such modified embodiment is within the scope of claim 5 and has the benefit of having a lower portion of the ferrule receptacle to provide a larger contact/support area provided by the front edge (right) of a supporting substrate 10 (compare Fig. 14 and 21) and to thereby enable greater mechanical strength of connection.
In light of the foregoing analysis, the Hirose combination teaches expressly or renders obvious all of the recited limitations.
Regarding claim 17, as detailed above for claim 1, the teachings of Hirose render obvious and encompass the modified embodiment which comprises both a partially-closed-style ferrule receptacle defining a cavity (as in Figs. 20 – 25) and alignment pins (as in Fig. 14) at least partially disposed within the partially-closed-style ferrule receptacle. The modified embodiment comprises:
a ferrule receptacle 80;
a device die 20 extending into a cavity of the ferrule receptacle 40 from a first (left) edge of the ferrule receptacle 80 (as shown in Fig. 25);
a guide pin (corresponding to 63 in Fig. 14) at least partially in the cavity (as detailed above for claim 1); and
a detachable fiber array unit 40 extending into the cavity from a second (right) edge of the ferrule receptacle 80 (as shown in Fig. 25), wherein the first (left) edge and the second (right) edge are opposite edges of the ferrule receptacle 80, and wherein the guide pin comprises a (right) portion in a pin hole (corresponding to 47 in Fig. 14; claim 5) of the detachable fiber array unit 40.
Regarding claim 3, Hirose teaches (Fig. 14) that the photonic receiving unit can further comprise an additional guide pin (a pair of guide pins 63 in Fig. 14), and the detachable fiber array unit 40 further comprises an additional pin hole (a pair of pin holes 47 in Fig. 14), and wherein when the detachable fiber array unit 40 is inserted in the cavity (of the modified embodiment, according Fig. 25), the additional guide pin comprises a (inserted) portion in the additional pin hole.
Regarding claims 4, 18, and 19, Hirose considers that the guide pin (63 in Figs. 13 and 14) is attached to the ferrule receptacle 60 to form an integral component. It would be obvious to a person that the guide pin can alternatively be configured to be physically detachable and replaceable from the ferrule receptacle 60 in order to facilitate repair by replacement and to provide compatibility with types of different fiber array units (e.g., having different diameters of pin holes). It has been held by courts that making parts integral or separate is within the ordinary skill in the art (In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965); In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961) (MPEP 2144.04, Section V, B and C).
Alternatively or additionally, the Examiner takes official notice that detachable alignment pins are well known in the art of fiber-optic plugs. They would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art as a suitable/workable design choice having the above-listed benefits.
Regarding claim 9, Hirose considers that the ferrule receptacle further comprises a rail recess (82ca in Fig. 25; para. 0108), and the ferrule housing further comprises a rail 83b on an edge of the ferrule housing, wherein the rail is 83b configured to slide in the rail recess 82ca when the detachable fiber array unit 40 is inserted into the ferrule receptacle 80 (as in Fig. 25). The embodiment in Fig. 6 also has a rail recess 45 of the ferrule receptacle 50, and the ferrule housing further comprises a rail 51b on an edge of the ferrule housing, wherein the rail is 51b configured to slide in the rail recess 45 when the detachable fiber array unit 40 is inserted into the ferrule receptacle 50 (as in Fig. 6; para. 0053).
Regarding claim 10, Hirose teaches that the photonic receiving unit 1A (as identified in Fig. 1) comprises a photonic die 20 and an electronic die C, with the die 20 being the photonic die 20 (“an electric circuit C and a pattern (not illustrated) are mounted on an upper surface of the substrate 10. The electric circuit C may be, for example, a switch circuit and the like” at para. 0039).
Regarding claim 11, Hirose teaches (Figs. 14 and 21) that the structure further comprises a package substrate 10, wherein the die 20 is over and electrically coupling to the package substrate 10 (“an electric circuit C and a pattern (not illustrated) are mounted on an upper surface of the substrate 10. The electric circuit C may be, for example, a switch circuit and the like” at para. 0039; “the optical signal is converted into an electrical signal by the light receiving element included in the optical integrated circuit 20 and transferred to the substrate 10. Also, the electrical signal transmitted from the substrate 10 to the optical integrated circuit 20 is converted into an optical signal by the light emitting element included in the optical integrated circuit 20” at para. 0042; “the optical integrated circuit 20 is electrically connected to the substrate 10 via a socket S. That is, the optical integrated circuit 20 and the substrate 10 transfer an electrical signal therebetween via the socket S” at para. 0043).
Regarding claim 21, Hirose teaches (Figs. 4 and 25) that the optical feature comprises a first lens L1, and the die 20 further comprises a second lens L2/30 (para. 0045, 0064, and 0065). Figure 4 shows that the first lens L1 and the second lens L2 create an expanded-beam configuration with a collimated/parallel beam formed within a gap between the first and second lenses L1, L2. It is obvious that the length of the gap is inconsequential and can be selected to be zero (in which case, the first and second lenses L1, L2 contact each other) in order to reduce the physical length of the structure.
Alternatively or additionally, the Examiner takes official notice that expanded-beam configurations with contacting lenses are well known in the art. They would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art as a suitable/workable design choice with a reduced overall size/length.
Claims 2, 5, 8, 12 – 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirose in view of Brusberg et al (US 2019/0094460 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Hirose teaches only embodiments wherein the alignment/guide pins (63 in Fig. 14) are inserted and fixed in the ferrule receptacle (“the receptacle includes a guide pin” in claim 5). Hirose does not teach that the alignment/guide pins 63 can alternatively be disposed and fixed in a groove of the die 20. However, Brusberg discloses (Fig. 39; para. 0189 – 0192) a structure comprising:
a photonic receiving unit comprising:
a ferrule receptacle 1100;
a die 100,1193 comprising a waveguide 106 (within the optical part 100, as shown in Fig. 1A; para. 0079); and
a guide pin 704 (para. 0165); and
a detachable fiber array unit (its coupled/plugged state is shown in Fig. 39A) comprising:
a ferrule housing 220 (para. 0183);
an optical fiber 1130.
Brusberg expressly teaches the ends of the alignment/guide pins 704 are disposed and fixed be in a groove(s) 1196 of the die 100,1193 (para. 0189) so that each guide pin 704 comprises a first portion in a groove 1196 of the die 100,1193, and a second portion protruding beyond an edge of the die 100,1193 (as seen in Fig. 39C).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the alignment/guide pins in the modified embodiment of Hirose (as detailed above for claim 1) can be disposed and fixed in a groove(s) of the die, as taught by Brusberg. Such arrangement eliminates fabrication tolerance/misalignment in placement of the guide pins within the ferrule receptacle and tolerance/misalignment in placement of the ferrule receptacle with the pins relative to the waveguides and thereby improves accuracy of alignment between the waveguides of the die and the optical fibers of the detachable fiber array unit.
Regarding claim 12, the teachings of Hirose and Brusberg combine (see the arguments and motivation for combining, as provided above for claim 1) to teach expressly or render obvious all of the recited limitations, as detailed above for claims 1 and 2. Specifically, the Hirose – Brusberg combination considers a structure (the modified embodiment detailed above for claim 1) comprising :
a first device die 20,10 comprising a substrate 10 (as identified in Figs. 14 and 20 of Hirose);
a guide pin (corresponding to 63 in Fig. 14 of Hirose), wherein a portion of the guide pin comprises a part in a groove of the substrate (according to Fig. 39 of Brusberg);
a ferrule receptacle (of a partially-closed type, as in Figs. 20 – 25 of Hirose), wherein the first device die 20,10 and the guide pin comprise portions in a cavity of the (partially-closed type) ferrule receptacle; and
a detachable fiber array unit 40 comprising:
a ferrule housing comprising a pin hole (corresponding to 47 in Fig. 14 of Hirose), wherein the detachable fiber array unit 40 is configured to be inserted into the ferrule receptacle (Figs. 12, 14, 20, and 21), and
the guide pin is configured to be inserted into the pin hole (as in Figs. 12 and 14).
Regarding claims 5 and 20, the Hirose – Brusberg combination considers that the detachable fiber array unit (fiber-optic plug) can further comprise a spring push (corresponding to springs 269 in Figs. 17 – 19 of Brusberg; “the bias members 269 may assist in pulling the plug connector 250 away from the receptacle 240” at para. 0138).
Regarding claims 8 and 13, the Hirose – Brusberg combination considers that the guide pin may be formed of any suitable material (“The first and second alignment pins 319A, 319B may be fabricated of any suitable material” at para. 0117 of Brusberg). Brusberg cites a metal as a suitable/workable material for the ferrule housing (para. 0087, 0100, and 0127) and renders obvious that the guide pin can comprise a metal in order to match the properties (hardness, coefficient of thermal expansion, etc) of a metal material of the ferrule housing whose pin holes the guide pin is to be inserted.
Alternatively or additionally, the Examiner takes official notice that guide pins made of metal materials are well known in the art. They would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art as a suitable/workable material choice providing good mechanical strength.
The Hirose – Brusberg combination considers that the substrate 10 can comprise a semiconductor (silicon) substrate in order to match the properties (hardness, coefficient of thermal expansion, etc) of silicon material of the photonic die 20 (“The connector support 690 may be fabricated from a material (or a plurality of materials) having a CTE that closely matches the CTE of the optical chip 100 and/or the ferrule such as, without limitation, silicon or glass” at para. 0158).
Regarding claim 14, the Hirose – Brusberg combination considers that the first (photonic) die 100 can be vertically stacked and overlapped with one or more additional dies 1191,1193 (as shown in Figs. 38 and 39D of Brusberg; “an integrated optical engine 1000 comprising a stacked optical chip 100, chip carrier substrate 1193 and a base substrate 1191” at para. 0187). This, the Hirose – Brusberg combination renders obvious a second device die 1193 overlapped by a first (left) part of the first (photonic) device die 100 (in the orientation of Fig. 38) and signally (electrically) coupled to the first device die 100; and
a package component 1191 underlying and electrically coupling to the second device die 1193 (according to para. 0039 0040, 0042, and 0043 of Hirose; para. 0163 of Brusberg).
Regarding claim 15, the Hirose – Brusberg combination considers a support element (corresponding to one of 790 in Fig. 32 and 990 in Fig. 34B of Brusberg) between the package component 1191 and a second (right) part of the first device die 100.
As a relevant comment, it is noted that it would be well within ordinary skill in the art (which is noted as being high) to suitably arrange two or more dies and/or support substrates/elements for a particular application.
Regarding claim 16, the Hirose – Brusberg combination considers that the contemplated structure can further comprise an adhesive in the groove (corresponding to 1196 in Fig. 39C of Brusberg) and adhering the guide pin 704 to the first device die 100 (“the alignment pins 704 may be secured within the alignment features 1196 by an adhesive” at para. 0189; “the first alignment pin, the second alignment pin and the connector support are coupled to the surface of the optical chip by an adhesive” in claim 21 of Brusberg).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirose in view of Matsubara et al (US 2016/0216459 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Hirose does not expressly teach that the ferrule receptacle can further comprise two alignment features in the cavity. However, Matsubara discloses (Figs. 1 – 3; Abstract; para. 0037 – 0072) an apparatus having essential structural features similar to those in Hirose and comprising:
a photonic receiving unit comprising:
a ferrule receptacle 21 (“a holder 23 for fastening the receptacle 21 to the substrate 17” at para. 0041);
a die 17,19 comprising a waveguide 19 (para. 0041); and
a pin hole 21b configured to receive a guide pin 31 (Fig. 3; para. 0046); and
a detachable fiber array unit 5 comprising:
a ferrule housing 15 (para. 0040);
an optical fiber 25 (para. 0043).
Matsubara expressly teaches (Figs. 3A – 3D) that the ferrule receptacle further comprises two alignment features in the cavity, wherein the two alignment features comprise tilted surfaces (the two tilted surfaces that receive and align a protruding part 29b of the ferrule housing 15, as shown in Figs. 3A – 3D) facing the cavity and opposite to each other, and the detachable fiber array unit 5 is configured to be limited by the tilted surfaces when inserted into the ferrule receptacle 21 (“because an inclined surface that further expands in diameter toward the plug 15 side is formed in the portion of the exposing opening 21a on the plug 15 side, the plug 15 is guided into the exposing opening 21a and smoothly inserted even when the plug 15 and the receptacle 21 are deviated in the y-direction or z-direction. That is, the deviation of the plug 15 and the receptacle 21 in the y-direction and z-direction is eliminated” at para. 0070, emphasis added).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the ferrule receptacle in Hirose can further comprise in accordance with the teachings of Matsubara, two alignment features with tilted surfaces that face the cavity and are opposite to each other. The motivation for such alignment features with tilted surfaces is that they ensure accurate alignment of the detachable fiber array unit to the ferrule receptacle and, as a result, to the waveguides.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 12,019,276 B2 Figs. 1, 2
US 7,292,756 B2 Figs. 19, 20
US 2025/0004220 A1 Figs. 3 – 5
US 10,379,293 B2 Fig. 1
US 10,228,520 B2 Figs. 1, 2, 7
US 10,495,827 B2 Figs. 1, 6
US 9,429,722 B2 Figs. 1, 2, 9
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT TAVLYKAEV whose telephone number is (571)270-5634. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 am - 6:00 pm, Monday - Friday.
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, William Kraig can be reached on (571)272-8660. 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.
/ROBERT TAVLYKAEV/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
Prosecution Insights