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 .
Detailed Action.
Information Disclosure Statement
The prior art documents submitted by Applicant(s) in the information Disclosure Statement(s) have SOME been considered (resend a list of IDS that are OCR) and made of record (note the attached copy of form(s) PTO-1449).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5 and 11-13 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.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
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 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.
Claim 1-2, 6-10 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Takagi” et. al. JP 2002040284 A.
Regarding claims 1, Takagi teaches a photonic integrated circuit (PIC) die (clearly shown in at least figs. 1-4);, comprising:
a body (the body is an integral of body 200a/b with 201) having a plurality of layers including a plurality of interconnect layers (clearly shown in at least figs. 1-4); and a set of optical connect grooves (i.e., 58-68) defined in an edge of the body (i.e., 58-68), the set of optical connect grooves including: a first groove aligning a core of a first optical fiber positioned therein with a first optical component in the plurality of layers (i.e., waveguide 209 in top layer, see fig. 2), the first groove having a first end face exposing the first optical component (i.e., 34) at a first lateral depth from an edge of the body (clearly shown in at least figs. 15 or 1-3), and a second groove aligning a core of a second optical fiber (i.e., 5004, 44 see fig. 15 and 1) positioned therein with a second optical component in the plurality of layers (i.e., waveguide 208 in bottom layer, see fig. 2 and 14-15), the second groove having a second end face exposing the second optical component at a second, different lateral depth from the edge of the body than the first lateral depth (see figs. 14-15 and 1-3 and two different layers where the waveguides are located are being coupled to the optical fibers located in different grooves with different depths to be aligned with the optical components).
However, in the illustrated example of figs. 1-3, above, taught by Takagi the “body” is shown is fragmented as not a single body. Nonetheless, Takagi in the specification states that the optical components/circuits can be integrated into one chip and thus it would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan skilled in the art when the invention was made to modify Takagi’s PIC into one chip with a single body since such integration would provide “ For waveguide type optical components, complex optical circuits can be integrated into one chip, and the LSI manufacturing process for mass production is used. -It is attracting much attention as a low-cost key device” and also predictable results.
The statements advanced in rejection of claim 1, above, as to the applicability and disclosure of Takagi and the motivation are incorporated herein in rejection of the following claims as follows:
2. The PIC die of claim 1, wherein the first groove aligns the core of the first optical fiber positioned therein with the first optical component in a first layer at a first vertical depth in the plurality of layers; and the second groove aligns the core of the second optical fiber positioned therein with the second optical component in a second, different layer at a second different vertical depth than the first vertical depth of the first layer (see figs. 14-15 and 1-3 and two different layers where the waveguides are located are being coupled to the optical fibers located in different grooves with different depths to be aligned with the optical components).
Regarding claims 6, Takagi does not a lid covering at least a portion of the PIC die over the set of optical connect grooves. Nonetheless, such lid/cover in the art is extremely conventional (l.e., US 20180267255 A1) and one of an ordinary artisan skilled in the art could easily such well known cover materials as 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.
7. The PIC die of claim 1, wherein the first groove and the second groove are each selected from a group comprising a V-groove and a U-groove (shown in figs. 1-4). .
Regarding claims 8, Takagi further teaches wherein the first optical component includes a waveguide and the second optical component includes a silicon waveguide.
a silicon nitride waveguide second optical component includes a silicon waveguide (see figs. 1-4 and the specification). However, Takagi does not explicitly teach that the above optical waveguide materials are, consecutively. silicon nitride and silicon. Nonetheless, such waveguide material is extremely conventional in the art and one of an ordinary artisan skilled in the art could modify Takagi’s PIC waveguides with such well known materials as 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.
The statements advanced in rejection of claim 1-2 and 6-8, above, as to the applicability and disclosure of Takagi and the motivation are incorporated herein in rejection of the following claims as follows:
Regarding claims 9, Takagi teaches a method, (see figs. 1-12);, comprising:
forming a first groove defined in an edge of a body of a photonic integrated circuit (PIC) die (see at least figs. 1-4 and translation), the first groove aligning a core of a first optical fiber positioned therein with a first optical component in a plurality of layers of the PIC die (clearly shown in at least figs. 1-4), wherein the first groove has a first end face exposing the first optical component at a first lateral depth from the edge of the body; and forming a second groove defined in the edge of the body (clearly shown in at least figs. 15 and 1-4), the second groove aligning a core of a second optical fiber positioned therein with a second optical component in a second at a second, different lateral depth from the edge of the body than the first lateral depth (see figs. 14-15 and 1-3 and two different layers where the waveguides are located are being coupled to the optical fibers located in different grooves with different depths to be aligned with the optical components).
10. The method of claim 9, further comprising: the first groove aligning with the core of the first optical fiber positioned therein with the first optical component in a first layer at a first vertical depth in the plurality of layers; and the second groove aligning with the core of the second optical fiber positioned therein with the second optical component in a second, different layer, at a second different vertical depth (see figs. 14-15 and 1-3 and two different layers where the waveguides are located are being coupled to the optical fibers located in different grooves with different depths to be aligned with the optical components)..
Regarding claims 14, Takagi does not a coupling lid covering at least a portion of the PIC die over the set of optical connect grooves. Nonetheless, such lid/cover in the art is extremely conventional (l.e., US 20180267255 A1) and one of an ordinary artisan skilled in the art could easily such well known cover materials as 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.
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
Prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. In accordance with MPEP 707.05 the following references are pertinent in rejection of this application since they provide substantially the same information disclosure as this patent does. These references are:
JP 2002040284 A
KR 20050076742 A
TW 579442 B
US 10209466 B2
US 10224286 B1
US 11105989 B2
US 11460637 B2
US 20130114924 A1
US 20160131842 A1
US 20170139133 A1
US 20170254954 A1
US 20180210009 A1
US 20180267255 A1
US 20200209477 A1
US 4046454 A
US 5757999 A
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAVEH C KIANNI whose telephone number is (571)272-2417. The examiner can normally be reached on 9-19.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Thomas Hollweg can be reached on571-270-1739. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KAVEH C KIANNI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights