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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues:
At p. 8 last para to p. 9 para 1 that “…the setup is designed "to align an alignment fiber 510 to an optical alignment structure in a silicon chip 534." Chao, paragraph [035]. This is the alignment of an optical fiber to an optical alignment structure on a silicon chip, not the alignment of a laser unit to a waveguide unit as claimed.”
Examiner response:
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Yes, it is true that the setup in fig. 5A is to align the fiber to the silicon chip. However, the alignment is achieved with all the elements shown in fig. 5A. The alignment is symmetrical, which means if the fiber to the silicon chip is aligned, this also indicates the light source 536 and detector 538 are aligned with elements 510 and 534. Thus, Chao teaches the limitations “a method of determining information about alignment of an alignment fiber to an optical alignment structure” and “a device for aligning a laser unit to a waveguide unit”.
Applicant argues:
At p. 9 para 3 that “Applicant respectfully submits that the Examiner's interpretation of Chao's Bragg grating as the "alignment unit of the laser unit" is erroneous. In Chao, the Bragg grating is part of the optical alignment structure on the silicon chip-that is, the waveguide unit side-not part of a separate laser unit. As Chao states, "[t]he Bragg grating may be configured to reflect predetermined wavelengths or a predetermined range of wavelengths of the input optical light and allow the remaining wavelengths of the input optical light to pass through"…”
Examiner response:
Again, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Since the alignment is symmetrical, as explained in the above arguments, Chao teaches the "alignment unit of the laser unit". The Bragg grating is part of the alignment unit as shown in fig. 7A of Chao and the device of assembly is an extension of the element 760.
With the two arguments above, the current rejections are maintained.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 26, 28, 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chao, L. et al., WO 2014112949 A1 (hereinafter Chao), and in view of Mack, M. et al., US 20180062748 A1 (hereinafter Mack).
Regarding claim 1, Chao teaches a method for aligning a laser unit to a waveguide unit, the method comprising: placing the silicon unit (fig. 5A element 534) in a tested position (fig. 5A element 510) in which the silicon unit faces the waveguide unit (fig. 5A element 510, para [010]); supplying light (this is shown in fig. 5A), via a coupler of the waveguide unit (this is shown in fig. 5A), to an alignment waveguide of the waveguide unit (this is shown in fig. 5A);
receiving light reflected from the alignment waveguide (para [033]; the waveguide has a Bragg grating that reflects the light back);
wherein when aligned to the waveguide unit (para [033]; similar to fig. 5C, para [038]; the detector in fig. 5A for the Bragg grating detects the alignment), an alignment unit of the laser unit reflects toward the alignment waveguide light having a spectral signature of the alignment unit (para [033]; the Bragg grating reflects the spectral signature (predetermined wavelengths or a predetermined range of wavelengths) of the alignment unit to the detector 538);
and “wherein when misaligned to the waveguide unit, the laser unit is configured to reflect light without the spectral signature of the alignment unit towards the alignment waveguide” (just like in fig. 5C, if the detector 538 cannot detect the predetermined wavelengths or a predetermined range of wavelengths, this means it is not aligned);
“determining whether the light reflected from the alignment waveguide comprises the spectral signature associated with the alignment unit of the laser unit” (para [033]; the Bragg grating reflects the spectral signature (predetermined wavelengths or a predetermined range of wavelengths) of the alignment unit to the detector 538);
wherein the alignment waveguide exhibits a frequency selective response that has the spectral signature (para [033]; the Bragg grating only reflect predetermined wavelengths or a predetermined range of wavelengths of the input optical light and allow the remaining wavelengths of the input optical light to pass through);
wherein the frequency selective response differs from a reflection from a mirror (para [033]; the Bragg grating only reflect predetermined wavelengths or a predetermined range of wavelengths of the input optical light and allow the remaining wavelengths of the input optical light to pass through; the mirror here is the Bragg grating),
wherein other frequencies than the frequency selective response are not returned by the mirror towards the alignment unit (para [033]; the Bragg grating only reflect predetermined wavelengths or a predetermined range of wavelengths of the input optical light and allow the remaining wavelengths of the input optical light to pass through; remaining wavelengths of the input optical light that pass through does not detect by detector 538) and
“then to the waveguide unit or at least are not returned by the mirror towards the alignment unit” (para [033]; the Bragg grating only reflect predetermined wavelengths or a predetermined range of wavelengths of the input optical light) and
then to the waveguide unit (para [033]; the Bragg grating only reflect predetermined wavelengths or a predetermined range of wavelengths of the input optical light), without being significantly attenuated (para [033]; the fact that the Bragg grating reflects predetermined wavelengths or a predetermined range of wavelengths means that the reflected light is not attenuated), thereby reducing or eliminating the reflected radiation from the mirror towards the waveguide unit (para [033]; thus, the reflected light has a very minimal reduction in loss); and “estimating whether the laser unit is aligned to the waveguide unit based on the determining” (fig. 5A element 538 detects the predetermined wavelengths or a predetermined range of wavelengths of the input optical light indicating the alignment, like similar to para [038]).
Chao fails to teach a laser unit.
Mack, laser unit from the same field of endeavor as Chao, teaches a laser unit (fig. 2 element 207 is a laser unit, para [0017] lines 1-7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Mack to Chao to have a laser unit in order to measure the alignment of silicon photonically-enabled integrated circuit (laser unit) to an optical alignment that is less expensive and cumbersome and more efficient way (para [0003].
Regarding claim 2, Chao does not teach the method according to claim 1 wherein the supplying of the light and the receiving of the light while the laser unit is deactivated.
Mack, from the same field of endeavor as Chao, teaches the method according to claim 1 wherein the supplying of the light and the receiving of the light while the laser unit is deactivated (fig. 2 element 207 is deactivated while being tested by element 201).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Mack to Chao to have the method according to claim 1 wherein the supplying of the light and the receiving of the light while the laser unit is deactivated in order to measure the alignment of silicon photonically-enabled integrated circuit (laser unit) to an optical alignment that is less expensive and cumbersome and more efficient way (para [0003]).
Regarding claim 4, Chao teaches the method according to claim 1 further comprising evaluating an amount of light that exited the coupler of the waveguide unit (this is shown in fig. 5A).
Regarding claim 5, Chao does not teach the method according to claim 1 wherein the alignment unit differs from a laser of the laser unit. Regarding claim 6, Chao does not teach the method according to claim 1 wherein the alignment unit is the laser of the laser unit.
Mack, from the same field of endeavor as Chao, teaches the method according to claim 1 wherein the alignment unit differs from a laser of the laser unit (fig. 6 shows the alignment unit has its own light source) and the method according to claim 1 wherein the alignment unit is the laser of the laser unit (fig. 6 shows the alignment unit has its own light source and this light source is the one that determines the alignment).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Mack to Chao to have the method according to claim 1 wherein the alignment unit differs from a laser of the laser unit and the method according to claim 1 wherein the alignment unit is the laser of the laser unit in order to measure the alignment of silicon photonically-enabled integrated circuit (laser unit) to an optical alignment that is less expensive and cumbersome and more efficient way (para [0003]).
Regarding claim 7, Chao does not teach the method according to claim 1 wherein the alignment waveguide differs from a main waveguide that is allocated for conveying radiation transmitted from a laser of the laser unit.
Mack, from the same field of endeavor as Chao, teaches the method according to claim 1 wherein the alignment waveguide differs from a main waveguide that is allocated for conveying radiation transmitted from a laser of the laser unit (fig. 1B has its own laser which is differ from element 202 as shown in fig. 2 which has its own waveguide; para [0017] lines 1-7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Mack to Chao to have the method according to claim 1 wherein the alignment waveguide differs from a main waveguide that is allocated for conveying radiation transmitted from a laser of the laser unit in order to measure the alignment of silicon photonically-enabled integrated circuit (laser unit) to an optical alignment that is less expensive and cumbersome and more efficient way (para [0003]).
Regarding claim 8, Chao teaches the method according to claim 1 further comprising attenuating light that passed through the alignment unit (para [033]; light is attenuated when it passes through the Bragg grating).
Regarding claim 12, Chao teaches the method according to claim 1 wherein the alignment unit is a first Bragg grating (para [033]).
Regarding claim 14, Chao fails to teach the method according to claim 1 comprising gluing the laser unit to a laser carrier following a completion of an alignment of the laser unit to the waveguide unit.
Mack, laser unit from the same field of endeavor as Chao, teaches the method according to claim 1 comprising gluing the laser unit to a laser carrier following a completion of an alignment of the laser unit to the waveguide unit (fig. 1C, para [0041] lines 1-7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Mack to Chao to have the method according to claim 1 comprising gluing the laser unit to a laser carrier following a completion of an alignment of the laser unit to the waveguide unit in order to measure the alignment of silicon photonically-enabled integrated circuit (laser unit) to an optical alignment that is less expensive and cumbersome and more efficient way (para [0003].
Regarding claim 15, Chao teaches a device for aligning a laser unit to a waveguide unit, the device comprising the silicon unit (fig. 5A element 534) and the waveguide unit (fig. 5A element 510, para [010]); an alignment unit (para [033] alignment unit is the Bragg grating), wherein the waveguide unit comprises an alignment waveguide (fig. 5A element 510, para [010]) and a coupler (this is shown in fig. 5A); “wherein the coupler is configured to receive light from a light source and to provide the light to the alignment waveguide” (this is shown in fig. 5A); wherein the alignment waveguide is configured to direct the light towards the silicon unit (this is shown in fig. 5A); wherein when aligned to the waveguide unit the alignment unit is configured to reflect light having a spectral signature of the alignment unit towards the alignment waveguide (para [033]; the Bragg grating reflects the spectral signature (predetermined wavelengths or a predetermined range of wavelengths) of the alignment unit to the detector 538); wherein the alignment waveguide exhibits a frequency selective response that has the spectral signature (para [033]; the Bragg grating only reflect predetermined wavelengths or a predetermined range of wavelengths of the input optical light and allow the remaining wavelengths of the input optical light to pass through); wherein the frequency selective response differs from a reflection from a mirror (para [033]; the Bragg grating only reflect predetermined wavelengths or a predetermined range of wavelengths of the input optical light and allow the remaining wavelengths of the input optical light to pass through; the mirror here is the Bragg grating), wherein other frequencies than the frequency selective response are not returned by the mirror towards the alignment unit (para [033]; the Bragg grating only reflect predetermined wavelengths or a predetermined range of wavelengths of the input optical light and allow the remaining wavelengths of the input optical light to pass through; remaining wavelengths of the input optical light that pass through does not detect by detector 538) and then to the waveguide unit or at least are not returned by the mirror towards the alignment unit (para [033]; the Bragg grating only reflect predetermined wavelengths or a predetermined range of wavelengths of the input optical light) and then to the waveguide unit (para [033]; the Bragg grating only reflect predetermined wavelengths or a predetermined range of wavelengths of the input optical light), without being significantly attenuated (para [033]; the fact that the Bragg grating reflects predetermined wavelengths or a predetermined range of wavelengths means that the reflected light is not attenuated), thereby reducing or eliminating the reflected radiation from the mirror towards the waveguide unit (para [033]; thus, the reflected light has a very minimal reduction in loss); wherein when misaligned to the waveguide unit the laser unit is configured to reflect light without the spectral signature of the alignment unit towards the alignment waveguide (just like in fig. 5C, if the detector 538 cannot detect the predetermined wavelengths or a predetermined range of wavelengths, this means it is not aligned); “wherein the alignment waveguide is configured to direct the reflected light towards the coupler; and wherein the coupler is configured to direct the reflected light towards a detector” (these are shown in fig. 5A).
Chao fails to teach wherein the laser unit comprises a laser.
Mack, laser unit from the same field of endeavor as Chao, teaches wherein the laser unit comprises a laser (fig. 2 element 207 is a laser unit, para [0017] lines 1-7; fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Mack to Chao to have wherein the laser unit comprises a laser in order to measure the alignment of silicon photonically-enabled integrated circuit (laser unit) to an optical alignment that is less expensive and cumbersome and more efficient way (para [0003].
Regarding claim 16, Chao does not teach the device according to claim 15 wherein the supplying of the light and the receiving of the light while the laser unit is deactivated.
Mack, from the same field of endeavor as Chao, teaches the device according to claim 15 wherein the supplying of the light and the receiving of the light while the laser unit is deactivated (fig. 2 element 207 is deactivated while being tested by element 201).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Mack to Chao to have the device according to claim 15 wherein the supplying of the light and the receiving of the light while the laser unit is deactivated in order to measure the alignment of silicon photonically-enabled integrated circuit (laser unit) to an optical alignment that is less expensive and cumbersome and more efficient way (para [0003]).
Regarding claim 18, Chao teaches the device according to claim 15 further comprising evaluating an amount of light that exited the coupled of the waveguide unit (this is shown in fig. 5A).
Regarding claim 19, Chao does not teach the device according to claim 15 wherein the alignment unit differs from a laser of the laser unit. Regarding claim 20, Chao does not teach the device according to claim 15 wherein the alignment unit is the laser of the laser unit.
Mack, from the same field of endeavor as Chao, teaches the device according to claim 15 wherein the alignment unit differs from a laser of the laser unit (fig. 6 shows the alignment unit has its own light source) and the device according to claim 15 wherein the alignment unit is the laser of the laser unit (fig. 6 shows the alignment unit has its own light source and this light source is the one that determines the alignment).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Mack to Chao to have the device according to claim 15 wherein the alignment unit differs from a laser of the laser unit and the device according to claim 15 wherein the alignment unit is the laser of the laser unit in order to measure the alignment of silicon photonically-enabled integrated circuit (laser unit) to an optical alignment that is less expensive and cumbersome and more efficient way (para [0003]).
Regarding claim 21, Chao does not teach the device according to claim 15 wherein the alignment waveguide differs from a main waveguide that is allocated for conveying radiation transmitted from a laser of the laser unit.
Mack, from the same field of endeavor as Chao, teaches the device according to claim 15 wherein the alignment waveguide differs from a main waveguide that is allocated for conveying radiation transmitted from a laser of the laser unit (fig. 1B has its own laser which is differ from element 202 as shown in fig. 2 which has its own waveguide; para [0017] lines 1-7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Mack to Chao to have the device according to claim 15 wherein the alignment waveguide differs from a main waveguide that is allocated for conveying radiation transmitted from a laser of the laser unit in order to measure the alignment of silicon photonically-enabled integrated circuit (laser unit) to an optical alignment that is less expensive and cumbersome and more efficient way (para [0003]).
Regarding claim 22, Chao teaches the device according to claim 15 further comprising attenuating light that passed through the alignment unit (para [033]; light is attenuated when it passes through the Bragg grating).
Regarding claim 26, Chao teaches the device according to claim 15 wherein the alignment unit is a first Bragg grating Bragg grating (para [033]).
Regarding claim 28, Chao fails to teach the device according to claim 15 comprising gluing the laser unit to a laser carrier following a completion of an alignment of the laser unit to the waveguide unit.
Mack, laser unit from the same field of endeavor as Chao, teaches the device according to claim 15 comprising gluing the laser unit to a laser carrier following a completion of an alignment of the laser unit to the waveguide unit (fig. 1C, para [0041] lines 1-7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Mack to Chao to have the device according to claim 15 comprising gluing the laser unit to a laser carrier following a completion of an alignment of the laser unit to the waveguide unit in order to measure the alignment of silicon photonically-enabled integrated circuit (laser unit) to an optical alignment that is less expensive and cumbersome and more efficient way (para [0003]).
Regarding claim 32, Chao teaches the device according to claim 15, “wherein the waveguide unit comprises a main waveguide and two side alignment waveguides, wherein the main waveguide is configured to receive signals from the laser unit after alignment, and wherein the two side alignment waveguides are configured to point to alignment units for aligning the laser unit” (this is shown in fig. 7A, col 12 last para to col 13 para 4).
Claim(s) 3, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chao, in view of Mack as applied to claim(s) 1, 15 and further in view of US 20160363728 A1 (hereinafter Wang).
Regarding claim 3, Chao does not teach the method according to claim 1 comprising changing the tested position and jumping to supplying the light when determining that the laser unit is misaligned to the waveguide unit.
Wang, from the same field of endeavor as Chao, teaches the method according to claim 1 comprising changing the tested position and jumping to supplying the light when determining that the laser unit is misaligned to the waveguide unit (Wang: para [0125] lines 1-8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Wang to Chao to have claim 1 comprising changing the tested position and jumping to supplying the light when determining that the laser unit is misaligned to the waveguide unit in order to enable an inexpensive actuation and detection system (para [0125] lines 1-8).
Regarding claim 17, Chao does not teach the device according to claim 15 comprising changing the tested position and jumping to supplying the light when determining that the laser unit is misaligned to the waveguide unit.
Wang, from the same field of endeavor as Chao, teaches the device according to claim 15 comprising changing the tested position and jumping to supplying the light when determining that the laser unit is misaligned to the waveguide unit (Wang: para [0125] lines 1-8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Wang to Chao to have device according to claim 15 comprising changing the tested position and jumping to supplying the light when determining that the laser unit is misaligned to the waveguide unit order to enable an inexpensive actuation and detection system (para [0125] lines 1-8).
Claim(s) 9, 10, 11, 23, 24, 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chao, in view of Mack as applied to claim(s) 1, 15 and further in view of Itoh, M. et al., CN 102667556 B (hereinafter Itoh).
Regarding claim 9, the modified device of Chao does not teach the method according to claim 1 further comprising attenuating light that passed through the alignment unit by an attenuating material that follows the alignment unit. Regarding claim 10, the modified device of Chao does not teach the method according to claim 1 further comprising attenuating light that passed through the alignment unit by a scattering element that follows the alignment unit. Regarding claim 11, the modified device of Chao does not teach the method according to claim 1 further comprising attenuating light that passed through the alignment unit by a termination of a laser unit alignment waveguide after the alignment unit.
Itoh, from the same field of endeavor as Chao, teaches the method according to claim 1 further comprising attenuating light that passed through the alignment unit by an attenuating material that follows the alignment unit (fig. 7A the attenuating material is element 710, para [0093]), the method according to claim 1 further comprising attenuating light that passed through the alignment unit by a scattering element that follows the alignment unit (fig. 7A element 710 scattered lights 706), and the method according to claim 1 further comprising attenuating light that passed through the alignment unit by a termination of a laser unit alignment waveguide after the alignment unit (fig. 7A shows it is terminated at element 710).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Itoh to the modified device of Chao to have the method according to claim 1 further comprising attenuating light that passed through the alignment unit by an attenuating material that follows the alignment unit, the method according to claim 1 further comprising attenuating light that passed through the alignment unit by a scattering element that follows the alignment unit, and the method according to claim 1 further comprising attenuating light that passed through the alignment unit by a termination of a laser unit alignment waveguide after the alignment unit in order to shield the scattered light to the reading of the optical alignment (para [0093] last sentence).
Regarding claim 23, the modified device of Chao does not teach the device according to claim 15 further comprising attenuating light that passed through the alignment unit by an attenuating material that follows the alignment unit. Regarding claim 24, the modified device of Chao does not teach the device according to claim 15 further comprising attenuating light that passed through the alignment unit by a scattering element that follows the alignment unit. Regarding claim 25, the modified device of Chao does not teach the device according to claim 15 further comprising attenuating light that passed through the alignment unit by a termination of a laser unit alignment waveguide after the alignment unit.
Itoh, from the same field of endeavor as Chao, teaches the device according to claim 15 further comprising attenuating light that passed through the alignment unit by an attenuating material that follows the alignment unit (fig. 7A the attenuating material is element 710, para [0093]), the device according to claim 15 further comprising attenuating light that passed through the alignment unit by a scattering element that follows the alignment unit (fig. 7A element 710 scattered lights 706), and the device according to claim 15 further comprising attenuating light that passed through the alignment unit by a termination of a laser unit alignment waveguide after the alignment unit (fig. 7A shows it is terminated at element 710).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Itoh to the modified device of Chao to have the device according to claim 15 further comprising attenuating light that passed through the alignment unit by an attenuating material that follows the alignment unit, the device according to claim 15 further comprising attenuating light that passed through the alignment unit by a scattering element that follows the alignment unit, and the device according to claim 15 further comprising attenuating light that passed through the alignment unit by a termination of a laser unit alignment waveguide after the alignment unit in order to shield the scattered light to the reading of the optical alignment (para [0093] last sentence).
Claim(s) 13, 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chao, in view of Mack as applied to claim(s) 1, 15 and further in view of Park, M et al., US 20060078257 A1 (hereinafter Park).
Regarding claim 13, the modified device of Chao does not teach the method according to claim 1 wherein the alignment unit is a first Bragg grating and wherein the method comprises attenuating light that passed through the first Bragg grating by a second Bragg grating.
Park, from the same field of endeavor as Chao, teaches the method according to claim 1 wherein the alignment unit is a first Bragg grating and wherein the method comprises attenuating light that passed through the first Bragg grating by a second Bragg grating (fig. 11 79, para [0090] last sentence; this means replacing the waveguide of Chao with the waveguide 73 of Park to the device of Chao will work as well, very similar to the instant application; both Bragg gratings of Park can be manipulated using elements 78 and 80 to reflect the spectral signature of the external light source).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Park to the modified device of Chao to have the method according to claim 1 wherein the alignment unit is a first Bragg grating and wherein the method comprises attenuating light that passed through the first Bragg grating by a second Bragg grating in order to increase the accuracy of the measurement.
Regarding claim 27, the modified device of Chao does not teach the device according to claim 15 wherein the alignment unit is a first Bragg grating and wherein the device further comprises a second Bragg grating that is configured to attenuate light that passed through the first Bragg grating.
Park, from the same field of endeavor as Chao, teaches the device according to claim 15 wherein the alignment unit is a first Bragg grating and wherein the device further comprises a second Bragg grating that is configured to attenuate light that passed through the first Bragg grating (fig. 11 79, para [0090] last sentence; this means replacing the waveguide of Chao with the waveguide 73 of Park to the device of Chao will work as well, very similar to the instant application; both Bragg gratings of Park can be manipulated using elements 78 and 80 to reflect the spectral signature of the external light source).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Park to the modified device of Chao to have device according to claim 15 wherein the alignment unit is a first Bragg grating and wherein the device further comprises a second Bragg grating that is configured to attenuate light that passed through the first Bragg grating in order to increase the accuracy of the measurement.
Claim(s) 29, 30, 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chao, in view of Mack as applied to claim(s) 15 and further in view of US 8345517 B2 (hereinafter Hurley).
Regarding claim 29, the modified device of Chao does teach the device according to claim 15, further comprising a laser carrier, wherein the laser carrier comprises a base and supporting elements that extend from the base and have upper ends that contact the laser unit and support the laser unit.
Hurley, from the same field of endeavor as Chao, teaches the device according to claim 15, further comprising a laser carrier (fig. 3, element 60, col 3 lines 49-61), wherein the laser carrier comprises a base (fig. 3 has a base) and supporting elements (fig. 3, the supporting element is element 62) that extend from the base and have upper ends that contact the laser unit and support the laser unit (element 62 extends from the base).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Hurley to the modified device of Chao to have the device according to claim 15, further comprising a laser carrier, wherein the laser carrier comprises a base and supporting elements that extend from the base and have upper ends that contact the laser unit and support the laser unit in order to have proper alignment between the laser and the waveguide (col 1 lines 52-56).
Regarding claim 30, the modified device of Chao does teach the device according to claim 29, wherein the laser carrier further comprises an elevated structure that elevates above the base, an insulator positioned on top of the elevated structure, and a conductive pad positioned on top of the insulator, wherein the conductive pad is electrically coupled to a terminal of the laser unit.
Hurley, from the same field of endeavor as Chao, teaches the device according to claim 29, wherein the laser carrier further comprises an elevated structure that elevates above the base (figs. 8-9, elements 174, 178), an insulator positioned on top of the elevated structure (figs. 8-9, element 174, col 5 para 3), and a conductive pad positioned on top of the insulator (figs. 8-9, element 178, col 5 para 3), wherein the conductive pad is electrically coupled to a terminal of the laser unit (col 5 para 3 last sentence).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Hurley to the modified device of Chao to have the device according to claim 29, wherein the laser carrier further comprises an elevated structure that elevates above the base, an insulator positioned on top of the elevated structure, and a conductive pad positioned on top of the insulator, wherein the conductive pad is electrically coupled to a terminal of the laser unit in order to provide solder self-alignment, electrical contact, and thermal cooling through the slider/head structure (col 5 para 3 last sentence).
Regarding claim 31, the modified device of Chao does teach the device according to claim 29, wherein the laser carrier further comprises mechanical bumps configured to contact the laser unit and maintain a distance between the laser unit and the waveguide unit.
Hurley, from the same field of endeavor as Chao, teaches the device according to claim 29, wherein the laser carrier further comprises mechanical bumps configured to contact the laser unit and maintain a distance between the laser unit and the waveguide unit (fig. 7 elements 144, 146, col 4 lines 54-65).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Hurley to the modified device of Chao to have the device according to claim 29, wherein the laser carrier further comprises mechanical bumps configured to contact the laser unit and maintain a distance between the laser unit and the waveguide unit in order to prevent contact between the laser output facet and the waveguide input facet (col 4 lines 54-65).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection 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 ROBERTO FABIAN JR whose telephone number is (571)272-3632. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (8-12, 1-5).
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, KARA GEISEL can be reached at (571)272-2416. 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.
/ROBERTO FABIAN JR/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/Kara E. Geisel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights