DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the amendment filed on August 31, 2026. In accordance with this amendment, claims 1, 4-6, 10-12, 14, and 16 have been amended, claims 2, 3, and 20 have been formally canceled, while new claims 21-22 have been added. The amendments to the specification and the corrections of the drawings are acknowledged.
Claims 1, 4-19, 21, and 22 remain pending and are finally rejected herein, with claim 1 as the sole pending independent claim.
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 27, 2026 (two documents), have been considered and made of record (note attached copy of forms PTO-1449).
Drawings
The corrected drawings (for Figs. 6-11 and 14-16; three (3) pages) were received on August 31, 2026. These drawings updates are acknowledged.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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, 4-19, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuo U.S. Patent No. 8,967,886 B2, regarding base / sole independent claim 1, and further in view of Tamekuni et al. US 2019/0219774 A1.
Regarding base independent claim 1, Kuo U.S. Patent No. 8,967,886 B2 teaches (ABS; Figs. 1-4 (note Fig. 4); corresponding text, in particular column 1, line 47 through column 3, line 26; Claims) an optical module 10 (Fig. 4), comprising: a circuit board 13, on which an optical chip is disposed (13b / 13c / 13d); a lens assembly 11 covered on the optical chip, wherein an inner surface of the lens assembly that faces towards the optical chip is provided with a first lens 11k, an outer surface of the lens assembly that faces away from the circuit board is provided with a reflective surface 11t; and one end of the lens assembly is provided with a wrapping cavity (negative space / recess feature to receive optics at / near 11n), and a second lens 11q is disposed in the wrapping cavity; and an optical fiber holder 12, in which at least one optical fiber 20 is inserted, wherein the optical fiber holder is inserted in the wrapping cavity to be connected to the lens assembly, wherein there is a gap between a fiber end-face of each of the at least one optical fiber and the second lens (gap or negative space shown in Figs. 2 and 4 between an end face a fiber and then “2nd lens(es)” 11q), and a first end face of the optical fiber holder and the fiber end-face are abutting each other; the wrapping cavity comprises a stop protrusion (stopping feature at left of Fig. 4 where element 12 abuts the integrated lens), a surface of the stop protrusion that faces towards the optical fiber holder is a stop surface (where element 12 stops), and the stop surface is in contact with and connected to the first end face of the optical fiber holder; and an optical signal emitted by the optical chip is transmitted to the fiber end-face through the first lens, the reflective surface and the second lens (operation of Fig. 4, some 13b emit and some 13c receive optical signals).
Regarding amended independent claim 1 (dated on August 31, 2026), Kuo US ‘886 does not expressly and exactly teach a “grinding surface” that creates an incline, as part of the “optical fiber holder” that faces the 2nd lens; and in that the “stop protrusion” is at least partially formed with an “inclined surface” that is to be connected to the grinding surface (during mechanical contact of these elements). However, the Examiner notes that the only patentable weight given the term “grinding surface” is that it is then formed at an angled incline in relation to the remainder of the longitudinal axis of the optical fiber holder. The methods of making structure (the grinding formation) do not necessarily impute patentable structure over a prior art reference, unless this structure is distinct. A grinding process merely provides a flat / angled surface.
Tamekuni et al. US 2019/0219774 A1 teaches (ABS; Figs. 1, 3-6; corresponding text, in particular paragraphs [0029] – [0050]; Claims) an optical fiber holder (either element found at left / right in Fig. 1 which holds a fiber(s); smaller versions and embodiments shown in Figs. 3-6), in which the optical fiber holder comprises a grinding surface (in other words, a flat / angled / inclined surface; note that there is no found patentable weight of the “grinding” method in view of Tamekuni’s flat, angled surface of the fiber holder structure). See, for example, Tamekuni Fig. 5 at the inclined (“grinding”) surface at 12b, which contacts with the stop protrusion (at 14b). Both surfaces are inclined and abut each other when the Tamekuni optical fiber holder is input to the wrapping cavity (negative space). The improvements in optical connectivity and mechanical contact by having inclined abutments are disclosed in Tamekuni paragraphs [0029] – [0050]. Such formations would have been recognized by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to improve and stabilize optical coupling between an inserted fiber holder (into a “wrapping cavity”) and coupled to a lens feature.
Since Kuo and Tamekuni are both from the same field of endeavor, the purpose disclosed by Tamekuni would have been recognized in the pertinent art of Kuo.
A person having ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the current application would have recognized the teaching of Tamekuni, to have an inclined surface (smooth, ground) for proper contact with a corresponding inclined stop protrusion, for improved optical coupling and mechanical contact, into the base design of the optical module of Kuo. Further, it would have required no undue burden or unnecessary experimentation to arrive at such feature of having an inclined (“grinding”) surface to a corresponding inclined surface of the lens stop protrusion. Tamekuni teaches how such angled contact improves optical coupling. See KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727 (2007). For these reasons, independent claim 1 is found obvious over Kuo and further in view of Tamekuni (henceforth “COMBO1”).
Regarding dependent claim 10, the fiber end face of Kuo does not protrude from the fiber holder end face (see Fig. 4), which meets the structure (same angles). Accordingly, this claim is found obvious over COMBO1. KSR.
Regarding claim 11, the stop surface of Kuo is between (and below, see Fig. 4) the second lens 11q and the optical fiber holder 12. Accordingly, this claim is found obvious over COMBO1. KSR.
Regarding claim 12, there are emission (13b) and reception (13c) components on the chip of Kuo, in that some emit light into at least one optical fiber 20 and some receive light from at least one different optical fiber 20 (Kuo claim 1). Accordingly, this claim is found obvious over COMBO1. KSR.
Regarding dependent claim 21, based on a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the Tamekuni reference (Figs. 4, 5, 6), the feature at the top (near 14b) is the “first stop portion”, because it is at a greater distance from the opening than the “second stop portion” (second stop is lower, near 12b). Also, at least part of the “first stop portion” is NOT in contact with the first end face of the optical fiber holder (see gap and non-contact in Figs. 3-6 at least at the top). Therefore, the feature of claim 21 is found obvious over COMBO1’s hypothetical device in claim 1. KSR.
Regarding claim 22, all such structure is found in the hypothetical COMBO1 device of claims 1 and 21 (intervening), as each surface is parallel to each other (see how contact occurs in Fig. 3-6 of the secondary Tamekuni reference).
Regarding claim 4, the angled contact difference of COMBO1 is between -2 and 2, because they are in flush contact approximately 0 degrees in Tamekuni. Therefore all structure is met. KSR.
Further regarding dependent claims 5-9 and 13-19, there is no express and exact recitation of a single embodiment of COMBO1 that employs such features in that step surfaces are found at different angles from the grinding surface (claims 6-9 and 13-19 further depending from “claim 21”) or “inclined surfaces” of the fiber holder, fiber, and stop features are at angles of 3-8 degrees or 9-13 degrees (claim 5). However, at a time before the effective filing date of the current application, it would have been an obvious matter of common skill and design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use features such as having step features for grinding / friction (to maintain the inserted fiber holder in (securely) to the wrapping cavity (claims 6-9 and 13-19) and/or for using slanted / inclined features for the insertion at the fiber / stop to improve contact and maintain proper positioning in the wrapping cavity (claim 5). It would merely have required common skill to use inclined / slanted surfaces in the inserted fiber (ferrule) holder and the stop surfaces, as a matter of common skill and design choice in the art (noting Tamekuni for inclines / slants). Applicant has not disclosed that using such features provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected COMBO1 to perform equally well with such features as the optical dependencies (features of steps (for friction fit) during insertion to the “wrapping cavity” or using slants / inclines of the abutments of the fiber -< stop for improved location and durability, because these claim terms would have been easily integrated and would have also been recognized by one with common skill in the art to improve optical signal propagation and the resultant lensed connection of emission and reception to the integrated lens design on chip. It would have required no undue burden or unnecessary experimentation to arrive at those features with an optical module such as in Kuo, when considering the hypothetical combination of COMBO1’s claim 1. Noting dependent claim 6, Kuo teaches similar features for the positioning column and positioning hole (see Figs. 1-3). Further, the base structure of the sole independent claim 1 is made obvious over COMBO1 (prior to this section, see above). Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of common skill and design choice to modify (and/or update) COMBO1 to obtain the invention as specified in claims 5-9 and 13-19. See KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727 (2007).
Claims 1, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. CN 214795316 U, regarding base independent claim 1, and further in view of Tamekuni et al. US 2019/0219774 A1.
Regarding independent claim 1, Liu et al. CN 214795316 U teaches (ABS; Figs. 10, 12, 13; corresponding text, in particular full English translation in IDS dated 1/15/25; Claims) an optical module (Figs. 10, 12, 13), comprising: a circuit board 300, on which an optical chip is disposed (at 32- / 310); a lens assembly 410 (shown distinctly in Fig. 13) covered on the optical chip, wherein an inner surface of the lens assembly that faces towards the optical chip is provided with a first lens 4220, an outer surface of the lens assembly that faces away from the circuit board is provided with a reflective surface 430; and one end of the lens assembly is provided with a wrapping cavity 480 (negative space / recess feature to receive optics at / near 480 -> 460), and a second lens 440 is disposed in the wrapping cavity; and an optical fiber holder 600 (can be inserted, optical fiber(s) therein), in which at least one optical fiber is inserted (ABS, “optical fiber” arranged in the port), wherein the optical fiber holder is inserted in the wrapping cavity to be connected to the lens assembly, wherein there is a gap between a fiber end-face of the optical fiber and the second lens (gap or negative space shown in Figs. 10, 12, 13 between an end face a fiber and then “2nd lens(es)” 440), and a first end face of the optical fiber holder and the fiber end-face are both inclined surfaces (at least slant as the element 600 in Liu can be the “incline” in a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of “incline”; see Fig. 11, slant of ferrule/fiber); the wrapping cavity comprises a stop protrusion (stopping feature at the top/bottom of element 600 during insertion in Figs. 10, 12, 13, for abutting and positioning in the wrapping cavity), a surface of the stop protrusion that faces towards the optical fiber holder is a stop surface (where element 600 stops), and the stop surface is for abutment to the first end face of the inserted optical fiber holder; and an optical signal emitted by the optical chip is transmitted to the fiber end-face through the first lens, the reflective surface and the second lens (operation of Figs. 10, 12, 13; propagation of optics).
Regarding amended independent claim 1 (dated on August 31, 2026), Liu CN ‘316 does not expressly and exactly teach a “grinding surface” that creates an incline, as part of the “optical fiber holder” that faces the 2nd lens; and in that the “stop protrusion” is also formed with an inclined surface that is to be connected to the grinding surface (during mechanical contact of these elements). Liu CN ‘316 merely teaches an angled / inclined surface of the optical fiber holder itself, and it is not exactly clear from the Figs. that the stop protrusion also has a corresponding inclined surface for proper mechanical contact and alignment. Notably, the Examiner alleges that the only patentable weight given the term “grinding surface” is that it is then formed at an angled incline in relation to the remainder of the longitudinal axis of the optical fiber holder. The methods of making structure (the grinding formation) do not necessarily impute patentable structure over a prior art reference, unless this structure is distinct. A grinding process merely provides a flat / angled surface.
Tamekuni et al. US 2019/0219774 A1 teaches (ABS; Figs. 1, 3-6; corresponding text, in particular paragraphs [0029] – [0050]; Claims) an optical fiber holder (either element found at left / right in Fig. 1 which holds a fiber(s); smaller versions and embodiments shown in Figs. 3-6), in which the optical fiber holder comprises a grinding surface (in other words, a flat / angled / inclined surface; note that there is no found patentable weight of the “grinding” method in view of Tamekuni’s flat, angled surface of the fiber holder structure). See, for example, Tamekuni Fig. 5 at the inclined (“grinding”) surface at 12b, which contacts with the stop protrusion (at 14b). Both surfaces are inclined and abut each other when the Tamekuni optical fiber holder is input to the wrapping cavity (negative space). The improvements in optical connectivity and mechanical contact by having inclined abutments are disclosed in Tamekuni paragraphs [0029] – [0050]. Such formations would have been recognized by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to improve and stabilize optical coupling between an inserted fiber holder (into a “wrapping cavity”) and coupled to a lens feature.
Since Liu and Tamekuni are both from the same field of endeavor, the purpose disclosed by Tamekuni would have been recognized in the pertinent art of Liu.
A person having ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the current application would have recognized the teaching of Tamekuni, to have an inclined surface (smooth, ground) for proper contact with a corresponding inclined stop protrusion, for improved optical coupling and mechanical contact, into the base design of the optical module of Liu. Further, it would have required no undue burden or unnecessary experimentation to arrive at such feature of having an inclined (“grinding”) surface to a corresponding inclined surface of the lens stop protrusion, because Liu teaches at least an inclined (“grinding”) surface on at least the fiber holder. Tamekuni teaches how such angled contact improves optical coupling. See KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727 (2007). For these reasons, independent claim 1 is found obvious over Liu and further in view of Tamekuni (henceforth “COMBO2”).
Regarding dependent claim 10, the fiber end face of Liu does not protrude from the fiber holder end face (see Figs. 10, 12, 13), which meets the structure (same angles). Accordingly, this claim is found obvious over COMBO2. KSR.
Regarding claim 11, the stop surface of Liu is between (and below/above, see Figs. 10, 12, 12) the second lens 440 and the optical fiber holder 600. Accordingly, this claim is found obvious over COMBO2. KSR.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 4-19, 21, and 22 (dated August 31, 2026) 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. Applicant has shifted the combination of features, as a whole and as arranged, found in sole pending independent claim 1, as dated August 31, 2026. Therefore, Applicant has necessitated the shift(s) or rejection, using the prior art of Tamekuni, as a supplement to both Kuo (as COMBO1) and Liu (as (COMBO2). Therefore, this office action is made FINAL.
Additionally, the Examiner reiterates that “grinding” surface does not impart any structure over a substantially flat inclined surfaces such as found in Tamekuni and/or Liu. The methods of forming (being ground down) do not necessarily impute any structure over the prior art.
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.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment dated August 31, 2026 has necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection, or shift(s) of rejection, as 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 Daniel Petkovsek whose telephone number is (571) 272-4174. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 - 6 PM.
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.
/DANIEL PETKOVSEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874 September 24, 2026
Prosecution Insights