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 Amendment
Applicant's Amendment filed 9/12/2025 has been fully considered and entered.
The objections to the claims, which were set forth in the Office action mailed 6/12/2025, have been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s Amendment, however, new objections are placed forth. See section below for details.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks page 10-12, filed 9/12/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-21 under U have been fully considered and are partially persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of a different interpretation of the previously applied reference.
Regarding the persuasive argument, page 10 of the Remarks dated 9/12/2025 points out that Taylor does not identify the fiber alignment technique of Fig. 5 as usable in the cases identified in Para. 46 and thus does not anticipate every claimed limitation. The examiner agrees.
Regarding the unpersuasive arguments:
Applicant argues that Taylor only teaches fiber-to-fiber docking (Remarks, page 11).
The examiner disagrees. See Taylor Para. 46 teaching an alignment technique variation involving non-fiber alignment scenarios. Note also that the claims of Taylor are directed to waveguides and not limited to fibers since waveguides may also refer to dies.
Applicant argues that Taylor does not teach a part of the alignment projection located above or below the alignment hole after mating (Remarks, page 12).
The examiner disagrees. The entire mated structure may be rotated into a vertically stacked orientation where the projection-containing member is above or below the alignment-hole containing member, and the entire structure can be flipped 180 degrees to obtain the other orientation, and these orientations can be interpreted as meeting the claimed limitation.
In summary, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention would understand that regardless of where the waveguide core is, whether it be in a fiber or a die, alignment would be necessary to ensure maximum light transfer efficiency. That is to say, regardless of whether the connection is fiber-to-fiber, fiber-to-die, or die-to-die, alignment is necessary, and Taylor shows possession of the knowledge of the benefits of alignment.
Claim Objections
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 21 begins: “The optical fiber of claim 20, wherein the alignment projection the optical die comprises…” There is no indicator that the Applicant is referring to “the alignment projection and the optical die”, “the alignment projection or the optical die”, or that “the alignment projection” was meant to be deleted. In order to make grammatical sense, the examiner is assuming that “the alignment projection” was meant to be deleted. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 21 defines a limitation relating to an optical die. Referring back to claim 20, the preamble is only directed to an optical fiber and not to an optical die. Claim 20 discloses that the optical fiber must be configured to be inserted into an alignment hole of an optical die, but this is considered to be no different than the optical fiber is capable of insertion into an alignment hole of an optical die, and does not require the optical die itself to be present. Since the optical die is not categorized as a component of the optical fiber, any limitation imposed on the optical die itself need not be disclosed by prior art. Rather, it is the capability of the optical fiber to mate with the optical die that is affected, so any limitation affecting the optical die but not further limiting the optical fiber’s capability does not impose a limitation on the optical fiber itself. The examiner recommends amending claim 20 to an optical device comprising an optical die and an optical fiber. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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) 1-6, 11, 13-17, and 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor et al. in US 20030194186 A1 (hereinafter "Taylor").
Regarding claims 1 and 13, Taylor discloses an optical device (see Para. 46), and a method of forming and mating said optical device, comprising:
an optical fiber (“telecom fiber” is interpreted as an optical fiber) comprising:
a core layer (necessarily present);
a cladding layer formed on the core layer (necessarily present); and
an optical die (“arrays of microfabricated silica-on-silicon channel waveguides” are interpreted as an optical die; see Para. 46) connected to the optical fiber (“telecom fiber”), comprising:
a die main body including a glass layer (“a block of dielectric material such as glass” is interpreted as a die main body including a glass layer; see Para. 46);
an optical waveguide located in the glass layer of the die main body (“femtosecond laser written waveguides in a block of dielectric material such as glass” are interpreted as an optical waveguide located in the glass layer of the die main body).
Taylor does not explicitly disclose in Para. 46 that the interpreted optical fiber comprises a first portion of a fiber alignment structure formed on an end face of the cladding layer. Further, Taylor does not disclose in the embodiment of Para. 46 that the interpreted optical die comprises:
a second portion of the fiber alignment structure formed on the die main body and mated to the first portion of the fiber alignment structure so as to align the core layer of the optical fiber with the optical waveguide, wherein the second portion of the fiber alignment structure is formed:
in an upper surface of the glass layer of the die main body; or
below the glass layer of the die main body.
However, Taylor discloses a waveguide-to-waveguide alignment technique for “docking” in Para. 48 wherein:
an optical fiber waveguide comprises a first portion of a fiber alignment structure formed on an end face (see Fig. 5A where the protruding plug 25 is formed on the end face of an optical fiber waveguide) of the cladding layer (see Para. 48 where the interpreted fiber alignment structures are said to be outside of the core region but within the waveguide cladding); and
a different (optical fiber) waveguide comprises a second portion of the fiber alignment structure formed on the waveguide main body (see Fig. 5B where the recessed socket 26 is formed on the end face of an optical fiber waveguide) and mated to the first portion of the fiber alignment structure so as to align the core layer of the optical fiber with the optical waveguide (see Para. 48 which describes the well-matched joining-together of 25 and 26 to give near perfect alignment of the cores), wherein the second portion of the fiber alignment structure is formed:
in an upper surface of the glass layer of the main body (Para. 48 discloses that the protrusions or holes are outside of the core region but within the waveguide cladding; wherever the fiber alignment structure is formed is interpreted as the upper surface depending on the viewed orientation of the device).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the waveguide-to-waveguide alignment technique of Taylor in the fiber-to-die arrangement for the purpose of providing the same function, i.e., “near perfect” alignment, thereby achieving reduced coupling losses and increasing desirability of the device.
Regarding claims 2, 11, 14, and 19, Taylor discloses the optical device of claim 1 and a method of forming of claim 13 as discussed above, and further discloses in Fig. 5A-B:
wherein the second portion of the fiber alignment structure comprises an alignment hole on an end face (recessed socket 26, as it was obviously applied above, is interpreted as an alignment hole), and the first portion of the fiber alignment structure comprises an alignment projection that projects from the end face of the cladding layer and is inserted into the alignment hole (plug 25, as it was obviously applied above, interpreted as an alignment projection and is capable of insertion into the interpreted alignment hole, especially for aligning and mating purposes) (claims 2 and 14); or
wherein the first portion of the fiber alignment structure comprises an alignment hole (26) on an end face of the cladding layer (see Para. 48), and the second portion of the fiber alignment structure comprises an alignment projection (25) that projects from an end face of the die main body and is inserted into the alignment hole (26; note that aligning 25 and 26 together to mate will necessarily require inserting the alignment projection into the alignment hole) (claims 11 and 19).
Taylor fails to teach that the alignment hole is on an end face of the die main body (claims 2 and 14); or that the alignment projection projects from an end face of the die main body (claims 11 and 19).
However, since Fig. 5A-B discloses two optical fiber waveguides with either an alignment protrusion (25) or an alignment hole (26), either optical fiber would be usable with the optical die and alignment technique of claim 1, that is, their orientation is interchangeable with respect to the end surfaces and the die would necessarily have a matching mate for alignment. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have either positioning arrangement of the alignment projection and alignment hole with respect to the optical fiber and optical die as a matter of obvious choice and it would be obvious to orient them in either manner since they will function the same, and since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70
Regarding claims 3 and 15, Taylor discloses the optical device of claim 2 and the method of claim 14 as discussed above, and further discloses wherein the end face of the cladding layer comprises a first planar surface and the end face of the die main body comprises a second planar surface that is substantially parallel to the first planar surface (the alignment technique of Para. 48 uses two substantially planar, substantially parallel surfaces on the end faces of two opposing waveguides, including the cladding; these planar surfaces must necessarily be formed and mated together in order to allow waveguide-to-waveguide alignment).
Regarding claims 4 and 16, Taylor discloses the optical device of claim 2 as discussed above, and further discloses wherein the alignment projection (25) comprises a recessed area adjacent to the core layer (see Fig. 5A of Taylor where everything is interpreted as recessed except the alignment projections 25 themselves and since Para. 48 describes the projections as residing in the cladding layer instead of the core depicted, this necessarily means that the cladding must have a recessed area surrounding the projections 25 that is also necessarily adjacent to the core; further, the recessed area adjacent to the core layer must necessarily be located in order to mate the alignment projection and alignment hole).
Regarding claim 5, Taylor discloses the optical device of claim 2 as discussed above, and further discloses wherein the alignment projection (25) comprises a size and shape corresponding to a size and shape of the alignment hole (26; 25 is sized and shaped so as to fit into 26; see Para. 48; “well matched”, “joined together”, and “docked” all indicate that the alignment technique involves complementary pieces that have corresponding sizes and shapes).
Regarding claims 6 and 17, Taylor discloses the optical device of claim 2 as discussed above, and further discloses wherein the alignment hole (26) comprises an undercut region (the alignment hole must necessarily have some depth and thus is interpreted as comprising an undercut region) that serves as a reference structure for mating (26 is used as a reference to determine if the protrusion of 25 is or is not aligned/inserted, i.e., mated, into the cavity of 26) the alignment projection (25) to the alignment hole (26).
Regarding claim 12, Taylor discloses the optical device of claim 1 as discussed above, but fails to teach that an adhesive layer is formed between the optical fiber and the optical die and fixing the optical fiber to the optical die.
However, Taylor teaches an adhesive layer formed between two waveguides and fixing the two waveguides (“can be glued with index matching epoxy”; see Para. 16).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the index matching epoxy as an adhesive layer in the device of Taylor for the purpose of securing the waveguides of the fiber and optical die together while maintaining a significant amount of light coupling thereby achieving a stronger, more desirable device with good coupling.
Regarding claim 20, Taylor discloses an optical fiber (“telecom fiber” is interpreted as an optical fiber; see Para. 46) comprising:
a core layer (“waveguide core”; see Para. 46);
a cladding layer formed on the core layer (necessarily present in order to function as a waveguide); and
an alignment projection (plug 25 is interpreted as an alignment projection) formed on an end face of the cladding layer (see Para. 48 where the waveguide alignment structures are said to be outside of the core region but within the waveguide cladding),
wherein the alignment projection (25) is configured to be inserted into an alignment hole (socket 26 is interpreted as an alignment hole; see Para. 48 where the plug and socket are configured to mate, i.e., the plug is inserted into the socket) so as to align the core layer of the optical fiber with an optical waveguide (see Para. 48 for a discussion of waveguide core alignment as a result of mating the plug and socket), such that a part of the alignment projection is located above the alignment hole or below the alignment hole after the alignment projection is inserted into the alignment hole (when the entire mated structure is oriented lengthwise in a vertical axis, all of the projection-containing member is above or below the alignment-hole containing member; the entire structure can be flipped 180 degrees to obtain either orientation).
Para. 48 fails to disclose that the socket 26 is located on an optical die.
Taylor discloses in Para. 46 that fiber-to-die alignment is known (note the die may be glass).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the fiber-to-die arrangement of Taylor as an alternative to the fiber-to-fiber arrangement of Taylor for the purpose of connecting to non-optical-fiber integrated circuits or dies thereby achieving increased compatibility with components such as lasers, sensors, or other compact devices, especially those intended for short-distance transmissions.
Regarding claim 21, Taylor discloses the optical fiber of claim 20 as discussed above, wherein the optical die comprises a glass layer (see Para. 46; a glass block must necessarily have a glass layer) having an edge located at the alignment hole (the outer end face is interpreted as the edge of the die located as the alignment hole) and the alignment projection (25) includes a recess configured to receive the edge of the glass layer (the recessed area surrounding the plug 25 is interpreted as a recess configured to receive the edge of the glass layer).
Claim(s) 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor et al. in US 20030194186 A1 (hereinafter "Taylor") as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Bauters et al. in "Silicon on ultra-low-loss waveguide photonic integration platform," Opt. Express 21, 544-555 (2013) (hereinafter "Bauters").
Regarding claim 7, Taylor discloses the optical device of claim 2 as discussed above, but fails to teach that the die main body comprises:
a silicon layer; and
the glass layer located on the silicon layer and including the optical waveguide.
Bauters teaches an optical device:
wherein the die main body comprises:
a silicon layer (“on silicon” is interpreted as a silicon layer; see Introduction, first paragraph); and
the glass layer located on the silicon layer and including the optical waveguide (“silica-based waveguides on silicon” refers to glass-based waveguides on silicon; see Introduction, first paragraph).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the silica-on-silicon of Bauters in the optical device of Taylor for the purpose of providing an ultra-low-loss waveguide die with efficient coupling to optical fibers thereby achieving a device with increased light transmission.
Regarding claim 8, Taylor/Bauters discloses the optical device of claim 7 as discussed above, but fails to teach that the alignment hole (26) is formed below the glass layer of the die main body in the silicon layer of the die main body.
However, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that in order to align the alignment features in the cladding of an optical fiber with the respective mating features on an optical die such as a silicon photonic chip, then the mating features would need to be placed at a distance respective to the alignment features of the optical fiber. As the only two known finite options are to have (a) the alignment hole placed within the glass layer, or (b) the alignment hole placed within the silicon layer, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to try placing the alignment hole within the silicon layer of the die main body for the purpose of aligning and mating the two components thereby providing a desirable optical connection without disturbing the transmitted signal as may happen with a non-flat core interface. See MPEP 2143(I)(E).
Regarding claim 9, Taylor/Bauters discloses the optical device of claim 7 as discussed above, but fails to teach that the alignment hole (26) is formed in the upper surface of the glass layer of the die main body.
However, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that in order to align the alignment features in the cladding of an optical fiber with the respective mating features on an optical die such as a silicon photonic chip, then the mating features would need to be placed at a distance respective to the alignment features of the optical fiber. As the only two known finite options are to have (a) the alignment hole placed within the glass layer, or (b) the alignment hole placed within the silicon layer, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to try placing the alignment hole within the glass layer of the die main body for the purpose of aligning and mating the two components thereby providing a desirable optical connection with increased alignment accuracy as compared to non-core alignment techniques. See MPEP 2143(I)(E).
Regarding claim 10, Taylor/Bauters discloses the optical device of claim 9 as discussed above, wherein the alignment hole (26) comprises a plurality of alignment holes (note Fig. 5B shows 2 holes) but fails to teach that the holes are formed in the upper surface of the glass layer on opposing sides of the optical waveguide.
However, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious at the time the invention was made to provide a plurality of alignment holes on opposing sides of the optical waveguide for the purpose of creating more optical alignment connections as well as decreasing the amount of time it takes to make additional connections using Taylor’s waveguide alignment technique.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor et al. in US 20030194186 A1 (hereinafter "Taylor") as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Huang et al. in US 20220250961 A1 (hereinafter "Huang").
Regarding claim 18, Taylor discloses the method of claim 14 as discussed above, but fails to teach that the first portion (25) of the fiber alignment structure (the combination of 25 and 26) is formed by 3D printing on the end face of the cladding layer (Para. 48).
Huang teaches the use of 3D printing on the end of an optical fiber ("suitable substrates include…tip of an optical fiber"; see Para. 28).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use any known technique to produce the first portion of the alignment structure on the end face of the cladding layer, including the use of 3D printing, since 3D printing as taught by Huang was a known method at the time of invention for the purpose of achieving the first portion of the fiber alignment structure thereby achieving higher precision, higher dimension stability, and complete freedom of manufacturing the optical component with low optical attenuation.
Conclusion
This prior art, made of record, but not relied upon, is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure since the following references have similar structure and/or use similar structure and/or similar optical elements to what is disclosed and/or claimed in the instant application:
US10429597B2 discloses a similar alignment technique.
US20220196925A1 discloses a fiber/waveguide inaccessible space.
US9151900B2 discloses a similar alignment technique.
US12276847B2 discloses a gap in the guiding hole.
US 20090269943 A1 discloses a similar alignment technique.
US 7298936 B1 discloses multiple protrusions for alignment purposes on an interlink.
US7033519B2 discloses method of fabricating sub-micron structures in transparent dielectric materials.
WO2002016070A2 discloses methods for creating optical structures in dielectrics using controlled energy deposition from a femtosecond laser.
US6433305B1 discloses method and apparatus for drilling holes with sub-wavelength pitch with laser.
US20020076655A1 discloses direct writing of optical devices in silica-based glass using femtosecond pulse lasers.
US 20030161590 A1 discloses guide pins/holes formed in the cladding and silicon platform layers in Fig. 3 and 10 and some gap spacing around the pins as in Fig. 8.
US 5414786 A discloses a similar alignment technique.
US 20190064454 A1 discloses a similar alignment technique.
US 5550942 A discloses a similar alignment technique.
US 5633968 A discloses a similar alignment technique.
GB 2376754 A discloses a similar alignment technique.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARBY M THOMASON whose telephone number is (703)756-5817. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 8am-5pm.
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.
/DARBY M. THOMASON/Examiner, Art Unit 2874
/UYEN CHAU N LE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874