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 4/9/2026 has been fully considered and entered.
The objections to the claims, which were set forth in the Office action mailed 1/9/2026, have been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s Amendment. However, new objection(s) are placed forth.
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in the Office Action mailed 1/9/2026 is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s Amendment. However, new rejection(s) are placed forth.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
Claims 9-10 and 22 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 9, line 6: “and one or more a beveled edges” should delete the ‘a’ and instead state “and one or more beveled edges”.
Claim 10, line 3: “x-direction direction” should instead state only “x-direction”.
Claim 10, line 4: “z-direction direction” should instead state only “z-direction”.
Claim 10, line 8: “a plurality of alignment projection” should instead state “a plurality of alignment projections”.
Claim 10, line 8: “the y-direction” should instead state “a y-direction”.
Claim 22, line 1: “undercut area located the die main body” should instead state “undercut area located the die main body”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 21 is 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.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "beveled edges" in the last line without specifying where or what the "beveled edges" are of. Claim 20, from which the claim depends, does not recite "beveled edges". Thus, it is unclear if the beveled edges are meant to be on the alignment projection or if the recess of the alignment projection is somehow configured to received beveled edges of some unknown structure. For examination purpose, the examiner is interpreting the claim as the beveled edges belonging to the alignment projection as defined in figure 3 and paragraph [055].
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) 1-3, 5, 12-16, and 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Korenaga et al. in US Patent 6,445,857 B1 (hereinafter "Korenaga") and as evidenced by Taylor et al. in US 20030194186 A1 (hereinafter "Taylor") and Hibbs-Brenner et al. in US 20020181882 A1 (hereinafter "Hibbs-Brenner").
Regarding claims 1, 13, and 20, Korenaga discloses an optical device (and a method of forming and mating said optical device), comprising:
a first waveguide (see Fig. 9 and Embodiment 3 in Col. 10, line 34 to Col. 11, line 40) comprising:
a core layer (the resin added to the groove 212 is interpreted as the core layer; see Col. 10 line 62 to Col. 11 line 2);
a cladding layer formed on the core layer (because the core is identified as having a higher refractive index than the substrates of the first and second waveguide parts 217 and 218, this necessarily means that the substrate material 211 of 217 and 218 have a lower refractive index and necessarily act as the cladding layer; the layer materials are interpreted as being formed on each other; see Col. 10, line 66 to Col. 11, line 2; the substrate materials 211 to make 217 and 218 are identified as being glass, see Col. 10 lines 42-44); and
a first portion of a fiber alignment structure formed on an end face of the cladding layer (see Fig. 9(b) which shows mating pieces 217 and 218; the examiner notes that pins 214 or recesses 213 can be on either 217 or 218 with no change in function); and
an optical die connected to the first waveguide (217 and 218 connect; see Fig. 9 and see Col. 11 lines 11-19), comprising:
a die main body including a glass layer (the substrate materials 211 to make 217 and 218 are identified as being glass, see Col. 10 lines 42-44);
an optical waveguide located in the glass layer of the die main body (the higher-refractive index material forming the core and located in a groove of the substrate 211 is interpreted as an optical waveguide located in the glass layer of the die main body); and
a second portion of the fiber alignment structure formed on the die main body (the complementary fiber alignment structure pin or recess of 217 or 218 is interpreted as the second portion of the fiber alignment structure) and mated to the first portion of the fiber alignment structure (see Col. 11 lines 11-19) so as to align the core layer of the optical fiber with the optical waveguide (necessary for optical transfer; see also Col. 11 lines 11-19), wherein an end face of the glass layer contacts the end face of the cladding layer (the end face of 211 of 217 contacts the end face of 211 of 218 when mated) of the first waveguide such that an upper surface of the glass layer extends perpendicular to the end face of the glass layer and perpendicular to the end face of the cladding layer of the first waveguide, and the second portion of the fiber alignment structure is formed in the upper surface of the glass layer (see Annotated Fig. 9(b) below) (claims 1 and 13);
slits extending from an upper surface of the die main body to the alignment hole (the recesses 213 are interpreted as having slits extending from an upper surface of the die main body to the holes on the end face which are used for alignment) (claim 20).
PNG
media_image1.png
343
453
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Korenaga fails to teach that the first waveguide is specifically an optical fiber. However, optical fibers are incredibly well-known in the art (as evidenced by Hibbs-Brenner, Para. 3). Optical fibers are incredibly useful for transmitting signals over long distances. Traditional waveguides also exhibit total internal reflection and allow them to work in the same manner that optical fibers do. Both optical fibers and waveguides necessarily have core material and cladding material for total internal reflection to occur inside the core. The examiner considers optical fibers and waveguides as known alternatives since waveguide-to-waveguide, fiber-to-fiber, and fiber-waveguide coupling as shown in the application and prior art (as evidenced by Taylor, as previously relied upon, and as well as Hibbs-Brenner which shows a similar multi-prong alignment structure with a corresponding mating alignment structure in Fig. 1a and 19 and which states applicability to optical fibers and end-coupled devices in Para. 3) function via end-to-end coupling. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to adjust the structure of Korenaga to be applicable to either optical fibers or waveguides or both (or other alternative well-known end-to-end coupling structures) and would have found it obvious to use Korenaga’s design on optical fiber(s) for the purpose of allowing the light signal to propagate for any great distance, such as miles, thus improving the connectability and desirability of the device, and since one of ordinary skill could have combined the elements by known etching methods with no change in their respective functions to yield predictable results. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claims 2 and 14, Korenaga discloses the optical device of claim 1 and the method of claim 13, wherein the second portion of the fiber alignment structure comprises an alignment hole located in the upper surface of the glass layer and on an end face of the die main body, 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 (recess 213 is interpreted as the alignment hole; pin 214 is interpreted as the alignment projection; both 213 and 214 are in the cladding substrate material of 217 and 218 respectively and are located in the upper surface and on the end face; see annotated Fig. 9(b) above) (claims 2 and 14); and
the step of mating of the first portion of the fiber alignment structure to the second portion of the fiber alignment structure comprises inserting the alignment projection into the alignment hole (see Col. 11 lines 11-19 which describes the mating) (claim 14).
It is noted that since neither 217 nor 218 is an optical fiber, either waveguide would be usable with the optical fiber 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, Korenaga discloses the optical device of claim 2, 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 (see Fig. 9(b) where the end faces of 217 and 218 facing each other are interpreted as substantially parallel planar surfaces; these planar surfaces must necessarily be formed and mated together in order to allow core-to-core alignment).
Regarding claim 5, Korenaga discloses the optical device of claim 2, wherein the alignment projection comprises a size and shape corresponding to a size and shape of the alignment hole (see Fig. 9(b) which shows complementary mating pieces; also see Col. 11 lines 11-27).
Regarding claim 12, Korenaga discloses the optical device of claim 1, further comprising fixing the optical fiber to the optical die (“for fixation”; see Col. 10 line 53).
Korenaga suggests using an adhesive layer formed between the optical components (see Col. 2 lines 42-58).
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 adhesive layer formed between the optical fiber and the optical die and in the device of Korenaga for the purpose of connecting the components in a fixed manner thereby achieving increased device durability.
Regarding claim 16, Korenaga discloses the method of claim 14, wherein:
the step of forming of the first portion of the fiber alignment structure comprises forming a recessed area in the alignment projection (see Col. 10 lines 41-43); and
the step of mating of the first portion of the fiber alignment structure to the second portion of the fiber alignment structure comprises locating the recessed area adjacent to the core layer (necessary step for alignment to occur; also see Col. 10 lines 47-57).
Regarding claim 21, Korenaga discloses the optical device of claim 20, wherein: the die main body further comprises a glass layer located above the alignment hole,
the slits extend through the glass layer from an upper surface of the glass layer to the alignment hole (Korenaga already disclosed that 211 is a glass layer and the rejection of claim 20 already interpreted slits as extending through this layer); and
the alignment projection includes a recess configured to receive the edge of the glass layer (the projection of Korenaga does not extend along the entire end face and is thus interpreted as having a recess underneath it capable of receiving the edge of the glass layer).
Korenaga did not disclose beveled edges.
Korenaga suggests that any shape may be used (see Col. 11 lines 20-27).
The examiner takes Official Notice that beveled edges (also known as chamfered edges) are well-known curves on the outside of structures for providing smooth alignment and preventing chipping of sharp corners.
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 beveled edges in the structure of Korenaga for the purpose of providing smoother alignment thereby achieving increased device longevity.
Claim(s) 6, 17, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Korenaga et al. in US Patent 6,445,857 B1 (hereinafter "Korenaga") as evidenced by Taylor et al. in US 20030194186 A1 (hereinafter "Taylor") and Hibbs-Brenner et al. in US 20020181882 A1 (hereinafter "Hibbs-Brenner") as discussed above, and in further view of Chen et al. in US Patent 8,326,100 B2 (hereinafter "Chen").
Regarding claims 6 and 17, Korenaga discloses the optical device of claim 2 and the method of claim 14 as applied above, but fails to teach wherein the alignment hole comprises an undercut region that serves as a reference structure for mating the alignment projection to the alignment hole (claims 6 and 17); and
the step of mating of the first portion of the fiber alignment structure to the second portion of the fiber alignment structure comprises using the undercut region as a reference structure (claim 17).
Chen teaches an undercut region (the region underneath and surrounding cantilever 105, see Fig. 1). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have the skill to use any distinguishing feature, including the undercut region, as the reference feature 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 the undercut of Chen in the device of Korenaga for the purpose of protecting the delicate fiber core thereby preventing unwanted core-to-core damage. Further, it would have been obvious to have used the undercut of Chen as the reference feature for alignment in the device of Korenaga for the purpose of ensuring physical contact of the end faces thereby achieving optical transmission.
Regarding claim 22, Korenaga discloses the optical device of claim 20, but fails to teach further comprising an undercut area located in the die main body and merged with the alignment hole, wherein the undercut area has a triangular shape having straight sidewalls that meet at a point below the alignment projection.
Chen teaches an undercut region (the region underneath and surrounding cantilever 105, see Fig. 1), which when applied to the structure of Korenaga results in an undercut area located in the die main body and merged with the alignment hole.
Korenaga/Chen fail to teach wherein the undercut area has a triangular shape having straight sidewalls that meet at a point below the alignment projection.
Korenaga suggest that any shape may be used including “V” which are triangular-shaped.
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 undercut of Chen in the device of Korenaga for the purpose of protecting the delicate fiber core thereby preventing unwanted core-to-core damage. Further, it would have been obvious to have the undercut form a triangular shape in the structure of Korenaga/Chen for the purpose of limiting axial movement to one direction thereby achieving increased ability to achieve core-to-core alignment.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Korenaga et al. in US Patent 6,445,857 B1 (hereinafter "Korenaga") and as evidenced by Taylor et al. in US 20030194186 A1 (hereinafter "Taylor") and Hibbs-Brenner et al. in US 20020181882 A1 (hereinafter "Hibbs-Brenner") as discussed above, and in further view of Pfnuer in US Patent 9,851,509 B2 (hereinafter "Pfnuer").
Regarding claim 10, Korenaga discloses the optical device of claim 2, wherein:
the alignment hole comprises a plurality of alignment holes formed in the upper surface of the glass layer on opposing sides of the optical waveguide in an x-direction (the recesses interpreted as alignment holes are formed in the interpreted upper surface on both sides, i.e., the opposing sides, of the core in the x-direction; see Fig. 9(b));
the plurality of alignment holes extend in a z-direction from the upper surface of the glass layer (the recesses interpreted as alignment holes extend downwards along the z-direction from the interpreted upper surface).
Korenaga fails to teach that the first portion of the fiber alignment structure comprises a bracket portion that projects from the end face of the cladding layer and is pressed flat against the upper surface of the glass layer, and a plurality of alignment projections that project from the bracket portion outward in a y-direction and downward in the z-direction into the plurality of the respective alignment holes.
Pfnuer teaches the first portion of the fiber alignment structure comprises a bracket portion that projects from the end face of the cladding layer and is pressed flat against the upper surface of the glass layer (see Fig. 6BG-6C which shows a portion projecting from the end face, when applied to Korenaga, the resultant structure is interpreted as comprises a bracket portion that projects from the end face of the cladding layer and is pressed flat against the upper surface of the glass layer), and
a plurality of alignment projections that project from the bracket portion outward in a y-direction and downward in the z-direction into the plurality of the respective alignment holes (Korenaga’s pins when placed on Pfnuer’s interpreted bracket portion is interpreted as a plurality of alignment projections that project from the bracket portion outward in a y-direction and downward in the z-direction into the plurality of the respective alignment holes).
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 interpreted bracket portion of Pfnuer in the structure of Korenaga for the purpose of providing more surface area thereby achieving a stronger coupling attachment structure.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Korenaga et al. in US Patent 6,445,857 B1 (hereinafter "Korenaga") and as evidenced by Taylor et al. in US 20030194186 A1 (hereinafter "Taylor") and Hibbs-Brenner et al. in US 20020181882 A1 (hereinafter "Hibbs-Brenner") as discussed above, and in further 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, Korenaga discloses the optical device of claim 2, but fails to teach wherein 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.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Korenaga et al. in US Patent 6,445,857 B1 (hereinafter "Korenaga") and as evidenced by Taylor et al. in US 20030194186 A1 (hereinafter "Taylor") and Hibbs-Brenner et al. in US 20020181882 A1 (hereinafter "Hibbs-Brenner") as discussed above, and in further view of Huang et al. in US 20220250961 A1 (hereinafter "Huang").
Regarding claim 18, Korenaga discloses the method of claim 14 as applied above, but fails to teach that the first portion of the fiber alignment structure is formed by 3D printing on the end face of the cladding layer.
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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-9 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record, which is the most relevant prior art known, does not disclose or render obvious:
An optical fiber as defined by claim 8, wherein:
the upper surface of the glass layer is located above the optical waveguide in a first direction and the alignment hole and an additional alignment hole are located on opposing sides of the optical waveguide in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction an undercut area is located in the die main body and is merged with the alignment hole and the additional alignment hole;
the alignment projection comprises a cross bar portion and two strut portions which have first ends connected to the ends of the cross bar portion, and two wing portions connected to second ends of the respective strut portions;
the strut portions extend perpendicular to the cross bar portion;
the wing portions extend parallel to the cross bar portion and perpendicular to the strut portions;
the cross bar portion is inserted into the undercut area in the die main body;
bottoms of the wing portions rest on the upper surface of the glass layer and the strut portions are inserted into the alignment hole and the additional alignment hole, respectively, to provide alignment between the core layer and the optical waveguide
in combination with all of the other limitations of base claim 1, 2, and 7. The Korenaga reference fails to disclose such a limitation, and if modified to include the structures required by the limitation would fail to operate as intended. Nothing on the record suggests that such differences would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Lastly, one having ordinary skill in the art does not possess any general knowledge or known motivations to find such differences obvious in view of the prior art of record. Claim 9 is allowable by virtue of its dependency on claim 8.
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 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
Prosecution Insights