DETAILED ACTION
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.
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 .
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: typographical error, in the PGPUB paragraph “[0017] In some embodiments, the halide may be one of chlorine, fluorine, or germanium.” A halide is a compound consisting of a halogen (i.e. chlorine or fluorine) and another element. Accordingly, the specification should state, “the halide comprises one of chlorine, fluorine, or germanium”. Please state on the record this was a typographical error, and a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize a halide is a compound consisting of a halogen and another element, and therefore, there is no new matter.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 claims in line 4 and lines 6-7 claims limitations directed towards an output characteristic of optical signals. However, there is no active step of sending output signals to the optical fiber. The Examiner interprets output signals are not required in the claim.
Claim 15 claims “the fractional pitch is configured for light-capture applications, wherein the light-capture applications require large acceptance angles of great than about 5 degrees”. This is interpreted as intended use.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: grammatical error. A halide is a compound consisting of a halogen (i.e. chlorine or fluorine) and another element. Accordingly, the claim should state, “wherein the halide comprises one of chlorine, fluorine, or germanium”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: grammatical error in line 2, “acceptance angles of great than about 5 degrees” should be “acceptance angles of greater than about 5 degrees”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1, 6-7, 9, and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lance et al. (WO2021/108060 – hereinafter Lance) in view of Butler et al. (US 2020/0057202), Hiroyuki (JP 2011-232636 A), and Liu (US 2012/0002919 – hereinafter Liu).
Regarding claim 1, Lance (abstract, Figs. 4-5, [0031], and [0048]-[0049] and claim 16) discloses a method of laser bonding optical elements to substrates comprising disposing a plurality of optical elements (110) positioned on a film (103) on a surface (102) of a substrate (100). Lance ([0005]) discloses one or more of the optical elements such as optical fibers, gradient-index (GRIN) lenses, waveguides, optical filters and the like. Based on these disclosures, the method steps disclosed by Lance provides for a step of positioning a portion of one of the plurality of optical fibers onto a film disposed on a surface of a substrate.
Lance (Figs. 4-5, [0048]-[0049], and claim 16) discloses applying a cover substrate (corresponding to placing a fixture) over one of the plurality of optical elements (i.e. optical fibers), the cover substrate having grooves 134 to allow for precise positioning of the optical elements on the first surface 102 in the x- and the z-axis, and suggests the bottom of the protrusions formed by the groove is in contact with surface of the substrate. Lance (Figs. 4-5, [0043]-[0049], and claim 16) discloses the fixture (“cover substrate 130”) defines an opening (“window 136”). Lance discloses the opening/window is configured so that a laser beam 120 may pass through to be incident on the one or more optical elements and discloses applying a laser beam to heat an interface between at least one optical element and the substrate to form a bond between the at least one optical element (i.e. optical fiber).
Lance fails to disclose the bottom surface of the fixture is in contact with the surface of the substrate. However, Butler ([0005]) discloses a method including bonding one or more optical elements, such as optical fibers, gradient-index (GRIN) lenses, micro-lenses, waveguides, optical filters, and the like, to a substrate. Butler ([0055]-[0056]) discloses a similar fixture (130). The fixture has grooves (134) to position the plurality of optical elements at known locations on the x- and z-axis and has an opening (136) to expose the optical elements to a laser beam through the open region to bond the optical elements. Both Lance and Butler disclose a fixture for positioning optical fibers having an opening to expose the optical fibers to a laser beam for bonding. Accordingly, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, in the step of placing a fixture disclosed by Lance, the fixture (i.e. cover substrate) of Lance could be substituted by the fixture taught by Butler, since they perform the same function of positioning a plurality of optical elements on the x- and z- axis and provide for an opening to expose the optical elements to a laser beam. Accordingly, the substitution of the fixture in the method of Lance, provides for a step of placing a fixture over one of the plurality of optical fibers such that a bottom surface of the fixture is in contact with the surface of the substrate, wherein the fixture defines an opening over the portion, as claimed.
Additionally, Lance (Fig. 6 and [0050]) discloses the substrate comprising a film layer 102 on the surface of the substrate absorbs the laser beam and the laser beam welds the bond areas 112 and ([0036]) discloses the film layer configured to absorb a wavelength of the laser beam, and raise the temperature of the first surface to locally heat and melt the substrate 100. Accordingly, the modified method of Lance also includes a step of applying heat to the film under the portion through the opening of the fixture to create a bond between the portion and the surface of the substrate.
Lance ([0052]) discloses the fixture (“cover substrate 130”) may be removed after bonding and Butler ([0056]) discloses after the optical elements are bonded the fixture may be removed. Accordingly, the modified method of Lance provides for removing the fixture from the surface of the substrate.
Lance and Butler fail to disclose details of the plurality of optical fibers prior to positioning, such as the additional steps of removing an excess portion from an end of one of the claimed plurality of optical fibers, forming a severed end from an end of the plurality of optical fibers that defines an output characteristic, the claimed optical variation portion in the plurality of optical fibers, and the output characteristic of the optical signals varies depending on a position along the optical variation portion.
Regarding “an end of the plurality of optical fibers defines an optical variation portion, the optical variation portion includes an optical pathway, and the claimed output characteristic”, Lance ([0048]) discloses the plurality of optical elements with precise positioning and suggests use of the positioned optical elements in fiber-array connector applications. Hiroyuki ([0011], [0031], and Figs. 7A and 7B) teaches a known optical fiber 10 used in an optical fiber, such as a singlemode fiber (SMF) 11 with a GRIN lens 12 provided at the end of the SMF, the GRIN lens has a predetermined length, and teaches light is converted incident from the SMF to the GRIN lens 12. Lance and Butler teach optical fibers as optical elements, Lance suggests a plurality of precisely positioned optical elements in fiber-array applications, and Hiroyuki teaches known optical fibers with a GRIN lens as a fiber provided at the end of the optical fiber in an optical fiber array. Accordingly, based on the additional teachings by Lance and Hiroyuki, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, in method of Lance, the plurality of optical fibers as optical fibers including a singlemode fiber end spliced with a graded index fiber end, since the spliced optical fiber is an alternative optical element/optical fiber taught in the prior art. The spliced fibers provides a step of forming an end of the plurality of optical fibers that defines an optical variation portion formed by splicing the SMF end with a GRIN fiber, and provides for the optical variation portion includes an optical pathway, and the output characteristic of the optical signals varies depending on the position along the optical variation portion, since the GRIN fiber converts light from the SMF, as taught by Hiroyuki.
Regarding the step of removing an end of one of the plurality of optical fibers and forming a severed end from an end of the plurality of optical fibers, as discussed above, Lance in view of Hiroyuki provides for a plurality of optical fibers formed by each optical fiber having an SMF end spliced to a GRIN fiber end. Hiroyuki fails to disclose in the step of forming the SMF ends spliced to the GRIN fibers, including the steps of forming a severed end from an end of the plurality of optical fibers or removing an excess portion from an end of one of a plurality of optical fibers. However, Liu (Fig. 1 and [0062]) teaches in the method of splicing optical fibers cutting the fiber to be spliced to a GRIN fiber to the required length and then splicing the GRIN fiber to that fiber, followed by cutting the GRIN fiber to the required length. Both Hiroyuki and Liu teach fibers spliced to a GRIN fiber. Accordingly, based on the additional splicing and cutting teachings by Liu, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, in the modified method of Lance in view of Hiroyuki having a plurality of optical fibers including a spliced singlemode fiber (SMF) and GRIN fiber, the method of forming the spliced fibers includes the steps of cutting the SMF to provide the required length of the fiber followed by splicing to the GRIN fiber and cutting the GRIN fiber to the required length. Accordingly, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the method of Lance in view of Hiroyuki, wherein the method further comprises forming the spliced fibers including the steps of removing an excess portion from the end of the spliced GRIN fiber (optical variation portion), thereby forming a severed end from an end that defines an output characteristic of the optical signals carried by the optical fiber, and as discussed above, the spliced optical fibers with the GRIN fiber provide for the limitation wherein the plurality of optical fibers defines an optical variation portion leading to the end, which now corresponds to the severed end, wherein the optical variation portion includes an optical pathway, and wherein the output characteristic of the optical signals varies depending on the position along the optical variation portion since the GRIN fiber converts light from the SMF.
Lance in view of Butler is merely simple substitution of one known element for another, such as the fixture of Lance for the fixture of Buter. Lance in view Hiroyuki also provides for simple substitution of a known optical element (optical fiber) for an alternative optical element (spliced optical fiber with GRIN lens), and Liu provides for details for forming the alternative optical element (i.e. spliced fiber) taught by Hiroyuki, which includes steps of removing an excess portion the spliced fiber, specifically the end with the GRIN fiber, by cutting to the appropriate length, thereby forming a severed end from an end of a plurality of optical fibers, as claimed. Accordingly, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the modified method of Lance in view of Butler, Hiroyuki, and Liu is merely combining prior art method steps directed towards optical fibers and bonding of optical fibers, and therefore, in the modified method of Lance, the step of positioning includes positioning a portion of the one of the spliced fibers (corresponding to the plurality of optical fibers) with the severed end onto a film on a surface of the substrate along with the claimed steps of placing a fixture, applying heat, and removing the fixture.
Regarding claims 6, as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above, the modified method of Lance provides for a plurality of optical fibers comprising a singlemode fiber (SMF) spliced with a GRIN fiber. Accordingly, the modified method of Lance provides for the plurality of optical fibers comprises a first optical fiber (corresponding to the SMF) and a second optical fiber (corresponding to the GRIN fiber).
Regarding claim 7, in addition to the rejection of claim 6 above, Hiroyuki ([0031]) further discloses the SMF is fusion-spliced with the GRIN lens (i.e. fiber), it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the method further comprising splicing the first optical fiber to the second optical fiber at a splice joint, as claimed in claim 7.
Regarding claim 9, in addition to the rejection of claim 6 above, as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above, Liu teaches cutting the various fibers, such as GRIN fiber to the required length and, as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above, the GRIN fiber is a lens. Accordingly, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the cutting of the GRIN fiber (i.e. second optical fiber) to length defines a cleaved gradient index (GRIN) lens, as claimed.
Regarding claim 12, as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above, the GRIN fiber is a lens that converts light from the SMF, which provides for the output characteristic of optical signals is one of collimating, diverging, or focusing as claimed.
Regarding claim 13, as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above, Lance ([0048]) discloses the plurality of optical elements with precise positioning and suggests use of the positioned optical elements in fiber-array connector (corresponding to a fiber array unit) applications. Additionally, Hiroyuki ([0021] and Figures) teaches optical fiber arrays used in an optical switch with multiple optical fibers. Accordingly, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the method further comprising use of the positioned optical fiber elements in a fiber array applications, such as an optical switch having a fiber array (corresponding to a fiber array unit) or a fiber array connector, and therefore, obvious to form a fiber array unit with the plurality of optical fibers, as clamed.
Claim(s) 3 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lance et al. (WO2021/108060 – hereinafter Lance) in view of Butler et al. (US 2020/0057202), Hiroyuki (JP 2011-232636 A), and Liu (US 2012/0002919 – hereinafter Liu) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bickham et al. (US 2021/0373238A1 – hereinafter Bickham).
Regarding claims 3 and 5, as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above, the modified method of Lance provides for removing an excess portion from spliced optical fiber at the end of the GRIN fiber to provide for a required length. Accordingly, the modified method of Lance provides for the step of removing an excess portion to form the severed end, as claimed. The modified method of Lance fails to disclose removing the excess portion comprises: the claimed steps of forming perforations, severing perforations, and applying a force. However, Bickham (Fig. 1 and [0052]-[0053]) teaches a method of laser-cleaving comprising forming perforation(s) on each optical fiber in a fiber array. Bickham (Fig. 4 and [0055]) teaches an air jet applying pressure onto the optical fiber array and perforations such that the free ends of the optical fibers are removed along the perforation. Accordingly, based on the teachings by Bickham, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, in the modified method of Lance, the removing of the excess portion to form the severed end could include the steps of forming perforations along one of a plurality of optical fibers, severing the perforations to define the excess portion and applying force a force, such as compressed air, as claimed in claim 5, to the perforation portion and the excess portion in order to remove the excess portion to form the severed end.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lance et al. (WO2021/108060 – hereinafter Lance) in view of Butler et al. (US 2020/0057202), Hiroyuki (JP 2011-232636 A), and Liu (US 2012/0002919 – hereinafter Liu) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bickham et al. (US 2021/0373238A1 – hereinafter Bickham) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Masafumi et al. (JP2006-305580A – hereinafter Masafumi).
Regarding claim 4, the modified method of Lance fails to disclose in the step of forming perforations along one of a plurality of optical fibers comprises lasering with a femtosecond laser. However, Masafumi (pgs. 5-6) teaches a femtosecond laser for use in cutting an optical fiber. Based on the additional teachings by Masafumi, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, in the method of cutting to form perforations by a laser, as discussed in claim 3 above, the method of using a femtosecond laser to form the perforations.
Claim(s) 2 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lance et al. (WO2021/108060 – hereinafter Lance) in view of Butler et al. (US 2020/0057202), Hiroyuki (JP 2011-232636 A), and Liu (US 2012/0002919 – hereinafter Liu) as applied to claims 1 and 6 above, and further in view of Bhagavatula et al. (US 2005/0069257 – hereinafter Bhagavatula).
Regarding claim 2,as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above, Hiroyuki ([0031]) teaches graded-index optical fibers also have gradually decreasing refractive index from the central axis to the outer edge, and graded-index fibers are used as the GRIN lens 12. Hiroyuki fails to disclose details of the graded-index fiber used as the GRIN lens. However, Bhagavatula ([0029]) teaches it is known in the art that a GRIN lens may be made from a GRIN multimode fiber.
Accordingly, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the modified method of Lance in claim 1 above, comprising a plurality of optical fibers comprising a multi-mode fiber to provide for the GRIN lens. With the multimode fiber as the GRIN, the modified method of Lance provides for the plurality of optical fibers comprises multi-mode fiber, as claimed.
Regarding claim 8, as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above, Hiroyuki ([0031]) teaches graded-index optical fibers also have gradually decreasing refractive index from the central axis to the outer edge, and graded-index fibers are used as the GRIN lens 12. Hiroyuki fails to disclose details of the graded-index fiber used as the GRIN lens. However, Bhagavatula ([0029]) teaches it is known in the art that a GRIN lens may be made from a GRIN multimode fiber.
Accordingly, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the modified method of Lance in claim 1 above, comprising a plurality of optical fibers comprising a multi-mode fiber to provide for the GRIN lens. With the multimode fiber as the GRIN, the modified method of Lance provides for the plurality of optical fibers comprises multi-mode fiber, as claimed.
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lance et al. (WO2021/108060 – hereinafter Lance) in view of Butler et al. (US 2020/0057202), Hiroyuki (JP 2011-232636 A), and Liu (US 2012/0002919 – hereinafter Liu) as applied to claims 1 above, and further in view of Bhagavatula et al. (US 2005/0069257 – hereinafter Bhagavatula) and Baumgart et al. (US 2006/0185397 – hereinafter Baumgart) and Ukrainczyk et al. (US 2002/0191911 – hereinafter Pub’911).
Regarding claim 10, as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above, Hiroyuki ([0031]) teaches graded-index optical fibers also have gradually decreasing refractive index from the central axis to the outer edge, and graded-index fibers are used as the GRIN lens 12. Hiroyuki fails to disclose details of the graded-index fiber used as the GRIN lens. However, Bhagavatula ([0029]) teaches it is known in the art that a GRIN lens may be made from a GRIN multimode fiber and the GRIN lens 106 is known to be tapered. Accordingly, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the modified method of Lance in claim 1 above, comprising a plurality of optical fibers comprising a tapered multi-mode fiber to provide for the GRIN lens, which would provide for the severed end having a tapered multimode fiber, wherein the taper defines the output characteristic of optical signals carried by the optical fiber.
Lance in view of Hiroyuki and Bhagavatula fails to disclose details of the GRIN lens, such as the GRIN fiber as a tapered multimode GRIN (i.e. optical variation portion), further comprising doping the optical variation portion and heating the severed end to form the taper. However, Baumgart ([0002], [0007]) teaches a method of forming a graded index multimode fiber by a chemical vapor deposition process, which includes a dopant to form the graded index. Baumgart ([0025]) teaches doping achieved by delivering GeCl-4 (corresponding to a halide). Accordingly, based on the additional teachings by Baumgart, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the modified method of Lance in view of Hiroyuki and Bhagavatula that the optical variation portion includes a tapered multimode fiber doped with a halide, such as GeCl-4.
Regarding the heating, as discussed above, Lance in view of Hiroyuki and Bhagavatula provides for a tapered multi-mode fiber to provide for the GRIN lens, which would provide for the severed end having a tapered multimode fiber, wherein the taper defines the output characteristic of optical signals carried by the optical fiber. Bhagavatula fails to disclose details of heating the severed end to form the taper. However, Pub’911 (abstract and Fig. 5B and [0026]) discloses a tapered lensed fiber including a multimode fiber having a gradient-index core and forming the tapered lensed fiber comprising attaching an optical fiber to a multimode fiber and applying heat to the surface of the multimode fiber to form the taper. Accordingly, based on the additional teachings by Pub’911, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the modified method of Lance having a tapered multimode fiber (corresponding to an optical variation) on the severed end doped with a halide, where the method further comprises heating the severed end to form a the taper. Accordingly, the modified method of Lance discussed above, provides for the method further comprising the claimed doping and heating steps, as claimed.
Regarding claim 11, as discussed in the rejection of claim 10 above, the modified method provides for doping with GeCl4, which provides for the halide is one of chlorine or germanium, as claimed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-15 is/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: the prior art fails to disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of optical fibers define a fractional pitch between 0.45 and 0.55, as claimed in claims 14 and 15.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Isenhour (US 2015/0168655) ([0078]) teaches a fractional pitch ranging from 0.08 and 0.23, and De Jong (US 2014/0185991) ([0069]) teaches a fractional pitch ranging from 0.08 and 0.23.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LISA HERRING whose telephone number is (571)270-1623. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: EST 6:00am-3:00pm.
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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached at 571-270-7001. 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.
/LISA L HERRING/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741