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 .
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Inventions I and II in the reply filed on January 29, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that all three inventions recite some of the same subject matter and therefore are not patentably indistinct. This is not found persuasive because, as stated in the restriction, the method recited in Invention III (claims 14-20) may be practiced by hand and/or without using the recited system or apparatus of Inventions I and II.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
Claims 1-13 are 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 1 recites the limitation "detected error" in line 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "detected error" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-13 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 1 recites a system for fabricating a photonic chip-to-chip coupling, the system comprising: a processor; and a memory storing machine-readable instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: control a bonding process that bonds a substrate to first and second photonic chips; generate, based on images of the bonded substrate and the first and second photonic chips captured by an imaging system, an initial optimum design for a waveguide within the substrate to optically couple the first and second photonic chips; control etching of a first portion of the waveguide within the substrate in accordance with the initial optimum design using a laser that polymerizes regions of the substrate; and monitor the etching of the first portion of the waveguide via the imaging system and generate an updated optimum design for a second portion of the waveguide that compensates for detected error in the first portion of the waveguide. None of the prior art teaches or discloses a system comprising of a processor programmed with instructions to monitor an etching process so as to modify the laser etching design of a second portion of a waveguide based upon a detected error on a first portion laser etched of said waveguide.
Claim 9 recites non-transitory computer-readable medium that contains the same allowable limitations as claim 1 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER C CAILLOUET whose telephone number is (571)270-3968. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM EST.
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, PHILLIP TUCKER can be reached at (571)272-1095. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER C CAILLOUET/Examiner, Art Unit 1745
/GEORGE R KOCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1745
Prosecution Insights