DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is responsive to Applicant’s response submitted 27 April 2026.
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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0136401 to Pezeshki et al.
In regards to claims 1 and 12, Pezeshki recites an optical module/ a manufacturing method of an optical module (Figure 3) comprising: a lens (313) having a first optical axis; an optical substrate (rectangular box left of element 317 PLC) having a rectangular external shape including a first side and a second side forming a right angle to each other; an optical waveguide (319) that is formed on the optical substrate and is optically coupled, in a cross section including the first side of the optical substrate, with a second optical axis forming a predetermined angle to the first optical axis; wherein the lens and the optical substrate are optically coupled, and both the second side and the first optical axis are substantially parallel to one side of the rectangular storage region. But Pezeshki fails to expressly recite a package that includes a storage region having a rectangular upper surface and stores the lens and the optical substrate. However, it can be clearly observed from Figure 3 of Pezeshki for the outline of the optical substrate to be rectangular. Furthermore, a space, such as a storage region would have been advantageous in order to provide storage and protection of internal components. The use of a rectangular shape would further be advantageous for modular purposes since packages and devices in the optical art are commonly rectangular. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to a person having ordinary skill in the art for a package that includes a storage region having a rectangular upper surface and stores the lens and the optical substrate.
In regards to claim 2, Pezeshki recites the first optical axis and the second optical axis form a nonzero angle. (angled waveguides)
In regards to claims 3, 4 and 6, Pezeshki does not expressly recite the first optical axis and the second optical axis form an angle equal to or more than 5 degrees and equal to or less than 30 degrees, a numeral aperture of the lens is equal to or more than 0.5 and equal to or less than 1, and one side of the rectangular storage region and the first optical axis form an angle equal to or less than 10 degrees. However, it would have been an obvious matter of common skill and design choice to a person having ordinary skill in the art to use features, such as optical axis angles and numerical aperture because Applicant has not disclosed that using such features proves an advantage, is used for a particular purpose or solves a stated problem. One or ordinary skill in the art would have chosen any of the above features since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. Since it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges or values through routine experimentation when the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have chosen any of the claimed values or ranges for the purpose of optimization of the device. In re Aller, 105 USPA 233; In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)
In regards to claim 5, Pezeshki recites one side of the rectangular storage region and the second side form an angle equal to or less than 5 degrees. Pezeshki shows the rectangular storage region to be rectangular in shape and therefore having an angle equal or less than 5 degrees. (Figure 3)
In regards to claim 7, Pezeshki recites an optical component (315) optically coupled with the optical waveguide via the lens.
In regards to claim 8, Pezeshki recites the optical substrate includes a light emitting element that generates light to be coupled with the optical waveguide. [0029]
In regards to claim 9, although Pezeshki does not expressly recite the optical substrate includes a light receiving element that converts light propagating through the optical waveguide into optical current, Pezeshki does recite a light emitting element. It is common practice and technique to adopt a receiver configuration in instead of a light emitting element in optical devices. It is an obvious matter of design choice to have substituted a light receiving element for a light emitting element in order to allow for the device to operate bidirectionally or add an additional level of functionality. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to a person having ordinary skill in the art for the optical substrate includes a light receiving element that converts light propagating through the optical waveguide into optical current.
In regards to claim 10, Pezeshki recites light being input from outside of the package is input to the optical waveguide from one cross section of the optical waveguide, and light being output from another cross section of the optical waveguide is output to outside of the package. [0029]
In regards to claim 11, although Pezeshki does not expressly recite the optical substrate includes a plurality of first electrodes that drive the optical waveguide, the package includes a plurality of second electrodes electrically connected to outside of the package, and each of the plurality of first electrodes and each of the plurality of second electrodes are connected, by using a conductor having a substantially same wiring length, Pezeshki does recite an isolator and modulator. A device having isolators and modulators must include a signal in order to function. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice and common skill for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have provided such features in order for a signal to be passed through the device so that the device can function as desired. Furthermore, the wiring length would have also been a matter of design choice, the length chosen in order to provide the desired signal transfer while minimizing electrical resistance and other unwanted signal disruptions. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have provided the optical substrate includes a plurality of first electrodes that drive the optical waveguide, the package includes a plurality of second electrodes electrically connected to outside of the package, and each of the plurality of first electrodes and each of the plurality of second electrodes are connected, by using a conductor having a substantially same wiring length.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 27 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues Pezeshki fails to teach an optical substrate and “the rectangular box left of element 317 PLC” does not define an optical substrate. However, the Examiner disagrees. Figure 3 of Pezeshki clearly shows an optical substrate with the rectangular outline. (See Figure below, dotted rectangular box) Furthermore, paragraph [0030] of Pezeshki teaches the PIC mounted to a substrate.
PNG
media_image1.png
306
464
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant further argues Pezeshki fails to teach an optical waveguide formed on the optical substrate. However, the Examiner disagrees. The claim language does not require the optical waveguide to be formed directly on the optical substrate. Instead, the optical waveguide is formed on the PIC which is formed on the substrate. Additionally, Applicant argues Pezeshki does not teach the lens array optically coupled to the optical substrate. However, the claim language does not require the lens array to be directly coupled to the optical substrate. The lens array is optically coupled to the optical substrate through the PLC.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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