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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The prior art documents submitted by applicant in the Information Disclosure Statements filed on July 05, 2024 and January 13, 2026 have all been considered and made of record (note the attached copies of form PTO-1449).
Drawings
Four (4) sheets of drawings were filed on July 05, 2024.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Paragraph [003], the examiner suggests the following changed to correct grammatical errors. Change "One method for having coupling multiple waveguides is to use fiber arrays." to “One method for coupling multiple waveguides is to use fiber arrays” or
“One method to couple multiple waveguides is to use fiber arrays.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become
aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: the examiner suggests the following changed to correct grammatical errors. Change “ The fiber array of claim 1, wherein the optical fiber core is single mode optical fiber core also has a uniform cross section adjacent the edge of the fiber cladding.” To “The fiber array of claim 1, wherein the optical fiber core is a single mode optical fiber core that also has a uniform cross section adjacent the edge of the fiber cladding.” ; or “The fiber array of claim 1, wherein the optical fiber core is single mode fiber core and has a uniform cross section adjacent the edge of the fiber cladding.”
For the purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted as: wherein the optical fiber core is single mode fiber core and has a uniform cross section adjacent the edge of the fiber cladding.
Appropriate correction is required.
Inventorship
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.
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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pfnuer (US10048455B2), in view of Whaley (US10495820B1).
Regarding claim 1, Pfnuer discloses a fiber array (FIG. 1) for edge coupling (Abstract: Mechanically couple and column 3 lines 63-65) of at least one optical fiber (fibers 120) with at least one wafer substrate (Substrate 105) at an edge of the fiber array (FIG. 4A), the fiber array comprising: an optical fiber core(120: Column 2 lines 66-67. fiber may refer to the combination of both the center core and cladding); a fiber cladding having an edge (edge coupled fibers require and edge), a top and a bottom, and covering the optical fiber core (It is physically inherent to all standard fiber optic cables for the cladding to surround the core. Because the fiber is a microscopic, circular strand, a 'top and bottom' simply mean the opposite sides of the exact same cylindrical layer); a V-groove mount (125) at the top of the fiber cladding (FIG. 1) ; and a fiber array lid (lid 115) at the bottom of the fiber cladding (FIG.1).
Pfnuer fails to disclose the fiber cladding has a uniform cross section adjacent the edge, and the fiber array lid has a taper adjacent the edge.
Whaley teaches the fiber cladding has a uniform cross section adjacent the edge (FIG. 1B. Cladding 138 is depicted with consistent thickness and parallel lines right up to the edge, indicating a uniform cross section), and the fiber array lid has a taper adjacent the edge (FIG. 1B) .
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the array of Pfnuer with the tapered lid and uniform cladding of Whaley. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that tapering the fiber array lid adjacent to the edge reduces stress concentrations at the fragile fiber-to-chip interface, increasing the structural robustness of the edge-coupled design. Tapered profiles are well-known to function as lead-in geometries, making the physical alignment and automated assembly of the fiber array onto the photonic wafer much easier to handle. Providing a uniform cross-section adjacent to the edge for the fiber cladding allows for standardized polishing techniques, reducing manufacturing variability and making it easier to achieve optimal optical smoothness at the facet.
Regarding claim 2, Pfnuer/ Whaley disclose the device of claim 1. Pfnuer further discloses the optical fiber core is a single mode optical fiber (Column 3 lines 1-2).
Pfnuer fails to disclose the optical fiber has a uniform cross section adjacent to the end of the fiber cladding.
Whaley teaches the optical fiber core is single mode fiber core (Colum 11 lines 57-58) and has a uniform cross section adjacent the edge of the fiber cladding (FIG. 1B. Cladding 138 is depicted with consistent thickness and parallel lines right up to the edge, indicating a uniform cross section).
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Pfnuer's single-mode fiber with the uniform cladding cross-section taught by Whaley. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Pfnuer's single-mode core with Whaley's uniform cross-section cladding to yield a predictable and expected improvement in fiber integrity and optical alignment.
Regarding claim 3, Pfnuer/Whaley discloses the device of claim 1. Pfnuer further discloses lid 115 could be made from any material that can provide structural support to hold the fibers (Colum 3 lines 13-16), but does not explicitly disclose the fiber array lid comprises a polymer.
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use polymer as the material for the fiber array lid since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 4, Pfnuer/Whaley discloses the device of claim 1. Pfnuer discloses a lid (115) but fails to disclose the angle of taper of the fiber array lid is 30 degree to 45 degrees.
Whaley teaches a tapered fiber array lid (Plate 120) with an angle of 45 degrees (FIG. 3. Column 16. Lines 18-19: Angle 311 is 135 degree. That would mean the adjacent angle, which would be the angle of plate, is 45 degree).
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to taper the have the angle of taper of the fiber array lid in range between 30 degree to 45 degrees, 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 involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 5, Pfnuer /Whaley disclose the device of claim 1. Pfnuer further discloses a photonic integrated circuit (Photonic Chip 300) comprising: a wafer substrate (300; FIG. 3); a fiber array according to claim 1 in-plane and coupled (Abstract: Mechanically coupled and column 3 lines 63-65) with the wafer substrate (FIG.4B).
Regarding claim 6, Pfnuer/Whaley disclose the device of claim 5. Pfnuer further discloses the optical fiber core is single mode (Column 3 lines 1-2).
Regarding claim 7, Pfnuer/Whaley disclose the device of claim 5. Pfnuer fails to disclose the optical fiber core is multimode fiber.
Whaley references prior patents that utilized multi-mode fibers (Column 13 lines 1-3).
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use a multimode fiber as it would be considered a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. KSR v. Teleflex.
Regarding claim 8, Pfnuer/Whaley disclose the device of claim 5. Pfnuer discloses a lid(115) but fails to disclose the angle of taper of the fiber array lid is 30 degree to 45 degrees.
Whaley teaches a tapered fiber array lid (Plate 120), with an angle(angle 311) of 45 degrees (FIG. 3. Column 16. Lines 18-19: Angle 311 is 135 degree. That would mean the adjacent angle, which would be the angle of plate, is 45 degree).
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to taper the have the angle of taper of the fiber array lid in range between 30 degree to 45 degrees, 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 involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 9, Pfnuer/Whaley disclose the device of claim 6. Pfnuer further discloses V-groove arrays (V-groove 125) are fabricated on separate silicon sub-mounts (Substrate 105. Column 2 lines 58-59: Silicon material) and are then edge coupled (Abstract: Mechanically couple and column 3 lines 63-65) to the wafer substrate(300. FIGS. 4A-B).
Pfnuer fails to disclose active alignment.
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use active alignment in the device of Pfnuer/Whaley as active alignment is a standard, universally known technique in the art to maximize optical coupling efficiency. While passive alignment (such as relying entirely on the V-groove tolerances) is known for lower-cost, lower-efficiency assemblies, active alignment is the standard industry method ubiquitously employed to achieve maximum light throughput.
Regarding “fabricated” and the examiner notes that Applicant is claiming the product including the process of making the photonic integrate circuit of claim 5, and therefore are of "product-by-process" nature. The courts have been holding for quite some time that: the determination of the patentability of product-by-process claim is based on the product itself rather than on the process by which the product is made. In re Thrope, 777 F. 2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claim 10, Pfnuer/Whaley disclose the device of claim 5. Pfnuer further discloses the wafer substrate comprises a deep trench structure (recessed region 315), and the fiber array is aligned above the deep trench structure (FIGS. 4A-B), the alignment including angle and position of the fiber array lid, wherein the angle of the fiber array lid is predetermined by a depth of the deep trench structure (FIG. 3. Column 3 lines 63-65.)
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pfnuer (US10048455B2) in view of Whaley (US10495820B1) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Zhou et al (US6879757B1), hereafter Zhou.
Regarding claim 11, Pfnuer/Whaley disclose the device of claim 10. Pfnuer further discloses method of manufacturing the photonic integrated circuit of claim 10, the method comprising; a) a step of etching a silicon substrate of the wafer substrate to form a deep trench structure such that the deep trench structure forms an optical interface for edge coupling(FIG. 3. Column 3 lines 52-53) ; and the fiber core is adjusted in proximity with the silicon oxide to achieve a good optical interconnection between the fiber array and the wafer substrate (Column 3 lines 48-51).
Pfnuer fails to discloses: a step of performing a first polishing of the fiber array lid to form the polished fiber array lid aligned with the wafer substrate and above the deep trench structure; and c) a step of performing a second polishing of the polished fiber array lid to place a further polished fiber array lid in proximity with a silicon oxide substrate.
Whaley teaches a step of performing a first polishing of the fiber array lid to form a polished fiber array lid aligned with the wafer substrate and above the deep trench structure (column 16. Lines 6-35.)
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Pfnuer’s method by incorporation Whaley’s polishing steps to improve the manufacturability and precision of this interface would naturally turn to Whaley. Whaley's polishing technique provides the precise alignment needed to maintain proximity between the fiber array lid and the silicon oxide substrate. By integrating Whaley’s method of polishing of the fiber array lid, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectation of successfully manufacturing the claimed device. Both references operate within the same field of silicon-based photonic integrated circuits, and the polishing and alignment techniques disclosed by Whaley are standard, well-known semiconductor and optical manufacturing processes that would yield the exact physical alignment claimed.
Whaley fails to teach a step of performing a second polishing of the polished fiber array lid to place a further polished fiber array lid in proximity with a silicon oxide substrate
Zhou teaches a step of performing a second polishing of the polished fiber array lid to place a further polished fiber array lid in proximity with a silicon oxide substrate (Column 5. Lines 24-28, second shaping step, FIG. 3B).
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Pfnuer’s method by further incorporating Zhou’s second polishing step. A person of ordinary skill would naturally turn to Zhou to achieve the exact physical placement of the fiber array relative to the silicon oxide substrate. Both references are in the same field of silicon-based photonic integrated circuits, and the shaping/polishing techniques disclosed by Zhou represent standard optical manufacturing processes. Integrating Zhou’s teachings would yield the final proximity constraint claimed, providing a person of ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of successfully manufacturing the claimed device.
Regarding claim 12, Pfnuer/Whaley/Zhou discloses the device of claim 11. Pfnuer further discloses a fiber array lid( Lid 115) Pfnuer fails to disclose the angle of taper of the further polished fiber array lid is 30 degree to 45 degrees.
Whaley teaches a tapered fiber array lid (Plate 120), with an angle(angle 311) of 45 degrees (FIG. 3. Column 16. Lines 18-19: Angle 311 is 135 degree. That would mean the adjacent angle, which would be the angle of plate, is 45 degree).
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to taper the have the angle of taper of the fiber array lid in range between 30 degree to 45 degrees, 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 involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s
disclosure:
Adivarahan et al (US 20240069287 A1) Active alignment
Shastri et al (US 11886013 B2) See entire disclosure
Zhong et al (CN 113109908 A) See entire disclosure
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAJANAE N GREEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2188. The examiner can normally be reached Tues-Fri. 5:30a-3:30p.
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.
/TAJANAE NICOLE GREEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2874
/UYEN CHAU N LE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights