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 (“Remarks”), filed 10 July 2026, have been fully considered.
Applicant's argues that US Patent Application Publication US 2017/0276879 A1 to Akiyama et al. (“US1”) does not describe, “a second position of a leading end of a core end surface exposed at the cut surface is offset from a first position of a coupling end of the optical coupling waveguide in the x-direction and the z-direction,” as set forth in independent Claim 1 (see Remarks at Pg 6 Para 7-Pg 7 Para 3). This argument is not persuasive.
Applicant cites Figs 1-3C of US1 to show that US1 does not describe the claimed first and second positions. The examiner concedes that the embodiment described by Figs 1-3C of US1 do not show a second position of a leading end of a core end surface exposed at the cut surface is offset from a first position of a coupling end of the optical coupling waveguide in the x-direction and the z-direction,” as set forth in Claim 1. However, the Figs 9A, 9B, 10A, and 13A (cited in the Office Action mailed 12 May 2026 at Para 8-10) do show such a configuration. Annotated Figs 9A and 9B are included here included herein, with point A corresponding to a first position of a coupling end of the optical coupling waveguide and point B corresponding to a second position of a leading end of a core end surface exposed at the cut surface.
PNG
media_image1.png
922
932
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant further argues that US1 does not describe, “the optical fiber includes a cut surface obliquely cut at an angle of more than 10° and 30° or less with respect to an optical axis of the optical fiber,” (see Remarks at Pg 3 Para 1-2). This argument is persuasive.
Applicant relies upon the dependency of Claims 2-3, 5, 7, and 10 upon independent Claim 1 in arguing that they are not anticipated by US1 (see Remarks at Pg 3 Para 3).
Therefore, the rejections of Claims 1-3, 5, 7, and 10 in view of US1 under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1) has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of US1 under 35 U.S.C. §103 (see below).
Applicant relies upon the dependency of Claim 4, 6, and 8 upon independent Claim 1 in arguing that they are not obvious in view, at least in part, of US1 (see Remarks at Pg 4 Para 2). In light of the new ground of rejection of Claim 1 herein in view of US1 under 35 U.S.C. §103 (see below), this argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues Claim 9 would not have been obvious in view of US1 and Chinese Publication CN 102495448 A to Sun et al. ("CN1") because there would be no motivation to combine US1 and CN1 in the manner set forth in the previous rejection (see Remarks at Pg 4 Para 5-Pg 5 Para 1). This argument is persuasive.
Therefore, the rejection of Claim 9 in view of US1 and CN1 under 35 U.S.C. §103 has been withdrawn.
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 1-3, 5, 7-8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable US1.
Regarding Claim 1, US1 describes an optical coupling circuit device (see Figs 5A-14), comprising:
an optical circuit board (31) including an optical circuit ([0049]) formed by an optical waveguide;
an optical fiber (37) coupled to the optical circuit board; and
an optical coupling waveguide (33/34) that is formed in the optical circuit board and configured to optically couple the optical fiber and the optical circuit, wherein
with a direction normal to the optical circuit board being defined as a z- direction, a plane orthogonal to the z-direction being defined as an xy-plane, a direction in which an optical axis of the optical coupling waveguide extends toward the optical fiber in the xy-plane being defined as an x-direction, and a direction orthogonal to the x-direction and the z-direction being defined as a y-direction, a second position of a leading end of a core end surface exposed at the cut surface is offset from a first position of a coupling end of the optical coupling waveguide in the x-direction and the z-direction (see Figs 6A, 7A, 9A-B, 10A, 13A).
US1 does not describe the optical fiber includes a cut surface obliquely cut at an angle of more than 10° and 30° or less with respect to an optical axis of the optical fiber. However, US1 does describe the optical fiber includes a cut surface obliquely cut at an angle of 10° with respect to an optical axis of the optical fiber (see [0051]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05.I, citing In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
Regarding Claim 2, US1 further describes
the optical axis of the optical fiber as in an xz-plane, and xl > 0 and zl> 0, where
coordinates of the first position are (0, 0, 0), and
coordinates of the second position are (x1, 0, z1) (configurations shown in Figs 6A, 7A, 10A, 13A).
Regarding Claim 3, US1 further describes
a holder (40) configured to hold the optical fiber, wherein
the holder includes a leading end surface that is cut so as to be approximately orthogonal to the cut surface of the optical fiber (see Figs 10A, 13A).
Regarding Claim 5, US1 further describes
the optical fiber as a single-mode fiber (see [0037]).
Regarding Claim 7, US1 describes
a fiber array formed of multiple optical fibers each being the optical fiber (see Fig 12, 14).
Regarding Claim 8, US1 further describes:
the optical coupling waveguide covered by a waveguide cladding (35), and
the cut surface of the optical fiber fixed to the optical circuit board with an adhesive (41, see [0037], [0051] that is transparent to a wavelength in use.
US1 does not describe the relative refractive indices as claimed. US1 describes refractive indices (both relative and absolute) or materials, which define the refractive indices of the various components and their effect on the coupling of light between the fiber and waveguide (see [0036], [0037], [0051], [0053]). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the components of US1 having the claimed relative refractive indices, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). The motivation for doing so would have been to produce a desired coupling efficiency between the fiber and waveguide.
Regarding Claim 10, US1 further describes
the optical coupling waveguide including a waveguide region extending from the first position in a +x direction and being lower in height than other regions of the optical coupling waveguide (see Figs 11C).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US1 as applied to Claim 3 above, and further in view of US Patent Application Publication US 2019/0235171 A1 to Brusberg et al. (“US2”).
US1 describes an optical coupling circuit as described above with respect to Claim 3. US1 does not describe a step is provided at a surface of the optical circuit board.
US2 describes an optical coupling circuit device (see Figs 1E-1G, 3A-4C and 10-15E) , comprising:
an optical circuit board (120) including an optical circuit formed by an optical waveguide (128/130);
an optical fiber (10) coupled to the optical circuit board;
an optical coupling waveguide (30/128/130) that is formed in the optical circuit board and configured to optically couple the optical fiber and the optical circuit, wherein
the optical fiber includes a cut surface (13) and is coupled to the optical circuit board at the cut surface, wherein
with a direction normal to the optical circuit board being defined as a z- direction, a plane orthogonal to the z-direction being defined as an xy-plane, a direction in which an optical axis of the optical coupling waveguide extends toward the optical fiber in the xy-plane being defined as an x-direction, and a direction orthogonal to the x-direction and the z-direction being defined as a y-direction, a second position of a leading end of a core end surface exposed at the cut surface is offset from a first position of a coupling end of the optical coupling waveguide in the z-direction (see Figs 1E-1G); and
a holder (58) configured to hold the optical fiber, wherein
a step (144/146) is provided at a surface of the optical circuit board, and the leading end surface of the holder is contacted with the step (see Figs 10 and 12A-12B).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the step structure of US2 in the optical circuit device of US1. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide alignment features between the fiber and waveguide, thereby ensuring proper operation and reduction of losses due to misalignment (see US2 at [0004] and [0093]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US1 as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of US Patent Application Publication US 2012/017011 A1 to Doerr et al. (“US3”).
US1 describes an optical coupling circuit as described above with respect to Claim 1. US1 does not describe a multi-core optical fiber.
US3 describes an optical coupling circuit device (101, Fig 1), comprising:
an optical circuit board (102) including an optical circuit (see [0021]) formed by an optical waveguide (125, 155);
an optical fiber (115, 120) coupled to the optical circuit board; and
an optical coupling waveguide (125) that is formed in the optical circuit board and configured to optically couple the optical fiber and the optical circuit, wherein
the optical fiber includes a cut (350) and is coupled to the optical circuit board at the cut surface (see Figs 3, 4B, 5), wherein
with a direction normal to the optical circuit board being defined as a z- direction, a plane orthogonal to the z-direction being defined as an xy-plane, a direction in which an optical axis of the optical coupling waveguide extends toward the optical fiber in the xy-plane being defined as an x-direction, and a direction orthogonal to the x-direction and the z-direction being defined as a y-direction, a second position of a leading end of a core end surface exposed at the cut surface is offset from a first position of a coupling end of the optical coupling waveguide in the z-direction (see Figs 3, 4B, 5), wherein
the optical fiber is a multi-core fiber including an m number of cores where m is an integer of 2 or more (see [0021], Figs 3, 5),
an m number of optical coupling waveguides (125) are formed in the optical circuit board (see Figs 2-3, 5), the optical coupling waveguides each being the optical coupling waveguide, and
xk' > xk, yk'=yk, and zl > 0, where
coordinates of the coupling end of a kth optical coupling waveguide are (xk, yk, 0), and
coordinates of a leading end position of a kth core are (xk', yk', zl) (see Figs 2-5).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the multi-core fiber and coupling structure of US3 in the optical circuit device of US1. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a plurality of coupled optical signals in a smaller footprint.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 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.
Claims 11-19 are allowed.
Claim 9 and independent Claim 11 each describe the optical coupling waveguide includes an islet-shaped waveguide region extending from the first position in a +x direction.
The prior art of record does not describe or reasonably suggest, in conjunction with the further limitations of the present claims, these limitations for the reasons set forth in Applicant's arguments (see Remarks at Pg4 Para 5-Pg 5 Para 1 and Pg 5 Parad 3-5).
Claims 12-19 depend from Claim 11 and are therefore allowable for at least the same reasons.
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 JERRY RAHLL whose telephone number is (571)272-2356. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am-5:00pm.
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.
/JERRY RAHLL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights