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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/14/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding applicant’s argument, “the amended claims do not treat the second optical device and the optical connector as the same structure”, Examiner has cited how the second optical device is separate from an optical connector as cited in the prior art of record, Chen et al., to meet the new combination of limitations.
Regarding applicant’s argument regarding claims 9 and 16, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Chen et al. (U.S. PG Pub. # 2020/0124798 A1) in view of Hamano (U.S. PG Pub. # 2006/0215963 A1).
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)(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.
Claims 1 – 8, 10 – 15 and 17 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen et al. (U.S. PG Pub. # 2020/0124798 A1).
In Re claims 1 and 18, ‘798 teaches a system comprising: a first optical device (B and G or B1 and G) disposed adjacent a photonics integrated circuit (PIC) (P),wherein the first optical device includes a first mirror (M1) to receive a light beam from the PIC and deflect the light beam in a first direction (L2); and a second optical device (C and GG) including a second mirror (MM), the second optical device configured to communicate with a multi-channel fiber array (FA), the multi-channel fiber array being coupled to an optical connector (CC), and the second mirror configured to receive the light beam deflected in the first direction and deflect the light beam deflected in the first direction toward a second direction (L3); wherein the multi-channel fiber array is configured to receive the light beam deflected in the second direction (figs. 3C, 4D, 4E).
In Re claim 11, ‘798 teaches an edge coupler comprising: a first optical device (B and G or B1 and G) that includes a first mirror (M1) to deflect a light beam in a first direction (L2); and a second optical device (C and GG) that includes a second mirror (MM), the second optical device configured to communicate with a multi-channel fiber array (FA), the multi-channel fiber array being coupled to an optical connector (CC), and the second mirror configured to receive the light beam deflected in the first direction and deflect the light beam toward a second direction (L3); wherein the multi-channel fiber array is configured to receive the light beam deflected in the second direction (figs. 3C, 4D, 4E).
In Re claim 2, ‘798 teaches wherein the first optical device is a fixed piece fixedly secured to the PIC (fig. 1D).
In Re claim 3, ‘798 teaches wherein the second optical device is a detachable piece (fig. 4D).
In Re claims 4, 12 and 19, ‘798 teaches wherein the second optical device, the multi-channel fiber array, and the optical connector collectively define a fiber array unit (fig. 1C).
In Re claim 5, ‘798 teaches wherein the fiber array unit is detachably coupled to the first optical device (fig. 1C, par. 0049).
In Re claims 6 and 13, ‘798 teaches wherein the PIC (P) is horizontally aligned with the first optical device (figs. 1B, 1D, 4E).
In Re claims 7 and 14, ‘798 teaches wherein the second optical device is disposed directly over the first optical device (fig. 4E).
In Re claims 8 and 15, ‘798 teaches wherein the first mirror and the second mirror are curved mirrors to achieve beam collimation (pars. 0037 , 0038).
In Re claim 10, 17 and 20, ‘798 teaches wherein the light beam is expanded after the first mirror, received by the second optical device, and refocused back to the multi-channel fiber array after the second mirror (par. 0044).
In Re claim 12, ‘798 teaches a fiber array unit as claimed (Via AA, fig. 3C).
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.
Claims 9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (U.S. PG Pub. # 2020/0124798 A1) in view of Hamano (U.S. PG Pub. # 2006/0215963 A1).
‘798 teaches the device of claims 1 and 11, and that the light translates from horizontal (L1) to vertical (L2) (par. 0042), thus a 90° angle, but is silent to wherein the first mirror is at a 45° angle with respect to a bottom surface of the first optical device.
‘963 teaches that mirrors disposed at 45 degrees convert light 90 degrees (par. 0021).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the mirrors of ‘798 to be at 45 degrees as taught by ‘963 so as to translate the light 90 degrees as claimed as a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.
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 CHAD SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-1294. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 - 5.
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 1-571-272-2397. 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.
/CHAD H SMITH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights