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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 7 are 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:
Re claim 6:
The prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious an optical component comprising, among other things, wherein a first width of the fastener is greater than a second width, wherein the first width is a width of the second end of the fastener in a second direction, the second width is a width of the first end of the fastener in the second direction, and the second direction is a direction perpendicular to an extension direction of the fiber array unit and parallel to the surface of the chip. The closest relevant prior art of record, Fang et al. (CN 210323477 U), teaches the thicknesses as seen in fig. 5 of item 4, which is opposite the ends as claimed.
Re claim 7:
The prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious a bonding strength of each of the first fastening glue and the second fastening glue is greater than bonding strength of the matching glue and an optical component comprising, among other things, wherein the fastener is at a position corresponding to the fiber array unit on the surface of the chip; and a part of an end face that is of the fiber array unit and that faces the chip is bonded to the fastener, and another part of the end face is bonded to a side face of the chip by using the first fastening glue. The closest relevant prior art of record, Cameron (U.S. Patent # 4,744,619), teaches a fastener (4) where a part of an end face of the fiber array unit (1) is bonded (via 8) to the fastener (4) and another part of the end face is bonded to the chip (3). However, there is at least no matching glue as claimed in claim 1. The only bonding agent used is item 8.
Thus, with no teaching from the prior art, and without the benefit of applicant's teachings, there is no motivation for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine/modify the prior art of record in a manner so as to create the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 – 3, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Janta-Polczynski et al. (U.S. Patent # 10,295,749 A1).
In Re claims 1 and 10, ‘749 teaches an optical component, comprising a chip (113), a fiber array unit (104), and at least one fastener (105), wherein the fiber array unit is located on a side (top) of the chip and comprises at least one optical fiber; at least one waveguide (110) is disposed on a surface of the chip, and matching glue (202, silicone, col. 8, lines 15 – 17) is filled between an end face of the waveguide and an end face of the optical fiber (col. 8, lines 1 – 3, fig. 2I); a first end of the fastener is bonded to the chip by using first fastening glue (204, epoxy, col. 9, lines 26 – 29), and a second end of the fastener is bonded to the fiber array unit by using second fastening glue (203, epoxy, col. 9, lines 9 – 12); and bonding strength of each of the first fastening glue and the second fastening glue is greater than bonding strength of the matching glue (epoxy is greater than silicone per claim 10).
In Re claim 2, ‘749 teaches wherein the second fastening glue and the matching glue are located on different surfaces (on the circumference and on the end face) of the fiber array unit; and the first fastening glue (upper top surface) and the matching glue (side surface of notch and lower top surface) are located on different surfaces of the chip (fig. 2I).
In Re claim 3, ‘749 teaches wherein the fastener is located on a same side of the chip and the fiber array unit (fig. 2I); and the first end of the fastener is bonded to the surface of the chip (via any of 201 – 204), the second end of the fastener is bonded to a first surface (a fiber) of the fiber array unit, and the first surface of the fiber array unit is parallel to the surface of the chip (fig. 2I).
In Re claim 9, ‘749 teaches wherein a material of the fastener comprises glass (col. 8, line 30).
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 – 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fang et al. (CN 210323477 U) in view of Janta-Polczynski et al. (U.S. Patent # 10,295,749 A1).
In Re claim 1, ‘477 teaches an optical component (fig. 11), comprising a chip (2), a fiber array unit (3), and at least one fastener (4 is made up of 41 and 42), wherein the fiber array unit is located on a side (bottom) of the chip and comprises at least one optical fiber; at least one waveguide (24) is disposed on a surface of the chip, and matching glue (5) is filled between an end face of the waveguide and an end face of the optical fiber; a first end (41 and 42 above 415) of the fastener is bonded to the chip by using first fastening glue (6 at 22), and a second end (415) of the fastener is bonded to the fiber array unit by using second fastening glue (6 at 41).
‘477 is silent to bonding strength of each of the first fastening glue and the second fastening glue is greater than bonding strength of the matching glue.
‘749 teaches using epoxy as fastening glues (204, epoxy, col. 9, lines 26 – 29, 203, epoxy, col. 9, lines 9 – 12) and silicone as a matching glue (202, silicone, col. 8, lines 15 – 17) whereby epoxy has a greater bonding strength than silicone as evidenced by par. 0012 of the published disclosure of the instant application.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify ‘477 to use silicone as the matching glue and epoxy as the fastening glues as taught by ‘749 as silicone allows for protection from contamination of light traversing between the waveguide and fiber and epoxy allows for adequate bonding between the materials as a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.
In Re claim 2, ‘749 teaches wherein the second fastening glue and the matching glue are located on different surfaces (on is on 32 and the other is on 31) of the fiber array unit; and the first fastening glue and the matching glue are located on different surfaces (top and side) of the chip.
In Re claim 3, ‘749 teaches wherein the fastener is located on a same side of the chip and the fiber array unit (fig. 11); and the first end of the fastener is bonded (via 6 and the body of 2 as claim doesn’t recite directly bonded) to the surface of the chip, the second end of the fastener is bonded (at 6 at 32) to a first surface (32) of the fiber array unit, and the first surface of the fiber array unit is parallel to the surface of the chip (fig. 11).
In Re claim 4, ‘749 teaches wherein a part of the fiber array unit extends from the surface of the chip (fig. 11); and a first thickness (horizontal across 41 and 42) of the fastener is greater than a second thickness (horizontal across 415), wherein the first thickness is a thickness of the first end of the fastener in a first direction, the second thickness is a thickness of the second end of the fastener in the first direction, and the first direction is a direction perpendicular to the surface of the chip (fig. 5).
In Re claim 5, ‘749 teaches wherein the fastener is located on different sides of the chip and the fiber array unit (fig. 11); and the first end of the fastener is bonded to the surface of the chip (via 6 and the body of 2), the second end of the fastener is bonded (indirectly) to a second surface (311) of the fiber array unit, and the second surface of the fiber array unit is not parallel to the surface of the chip.
Claims 8, 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Janta-Polczynski et al. (U.S. Patent # 10,295,749 A1).
In Re claim 8, ‘749 teaches the component of claim 1 but is silent to the protection boards as claimed.
However, it is well known in the art to use two substrates to sandwich a fiber array so as to allow for extra protection of the optical fibers.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify ‘749 to use protection boards as claimed so as to allow for a more robust component for use in harsh environments as a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.
In Re claim 11, ‘749 teaches ‘749 teaches an optical module, comprising an optical component, wherein the optical component comprising a chip (113), a fiber array unit (104), and at least one fastener (105), wherein the fiber array unit is located on a side (top) of the chip and comprises at least one optical fiber; at least one waveguide (110) is disposed on a surface of the chip, and matching glue (202, silicone, col. 8, lines 15 – 17) is filled between an end face of the waveguide and an end face of the optical fiber (col. 8, lines 1 – 3, fig. 2I); a first end of the fastener is bonded to the chip by using first fastening glue (204, epoxy, col. 9, lines 26 – 29), and a second end of the fastener is bonded to the fiber array unit by using second fastening glue (203, epoxy, col. 9, lines 9 – 12); and bonding strength of each of the first fastening glue and the second fastening glue is greater than bonding strength of the matching glue (epoxy is greater than silicone per claim 10).
‘749 is silent to a housing that wraps the optical component.
However, it is well known in the are to encase optical components such as claims in claim 11 in a robust housing so as to protect from harsh environments.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify ‘749 to have a housing to wrap (encase) the optical components so as to protect from harsh environments as a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.
In Re claim 12, ‘749 teaches a communication device comprising an optical component, comprising a chip (113), a fiber array unit (104), and at least one fastener (105), wherein the fiber array unit is located on a side (top) of the chip and comprises at least one optical fiber; at least one waveguide (110) is disposed on a surface of the chip, and matching glue (202, silicone, col. 8, lines 15 – 17) is filled between an end face of the waveguide and an end face of the optical fiber (col. 8, lines 1 – 3, fig. 2I); a first end of the fastener is bonded to the chip by using first fastening glue (204, epoxy, col. 9, lines 26 – 29), and a second end of the fastener is bonded to the fiber array unit by using second fastening glue (203, epoxy, col. 9, lines 9 – 12); and bonding strength of each of the first fastening glue and the second fastening glue is greater than bonding strength of the matching glue (epoxy is greater than silicone per claim 10).
Furthermore, ‘749 teaches that the photonic die (101) is at least part of a photonic device which generates light (col. 3, lines 54 – 65, col. 5, lines 49 – 50).
‘749 is silent to a power module and housing as claimed.
However, it is well known in the art to use a power module to supply power to generate aforementioned light to the phonic device, which comprises the optical components of claim 12 and to encase claimed optical components in a robust housing so as to protect from harsh environments.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify ‘749 to have a power module as claimed as the means for generating or detecting light to be traversed within the optical component of claim 12 and to have a housing to wrap (encase) the optical components so as to have a fully functional device usable in harsh environments as a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHAD SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-1294. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 - 5.
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 1-571-272-2397. 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.
/CHAD H SMITH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights