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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of US12149052B2 (hereinafter Yoel) in view of Chao, L. et al., WO 2014112949 A1 (hereinafter Chao).
Regarding claim 1, Yoel teaches a method for aligning a laser unit to a waveguide unit, the method (claim 1 lines 27-28) comprising: placing the laser unit in a tested position in which the laser unit faces the waveguide unit (claim 1 lines 29-30); supplying light, via a coupler of the waveguide unit, to an alignment waveguide of the waveguide unit (claim 1 lines 31-32); receiving light reflected from the alignment waveguide (claim 1 line 33); and estimating whether the laser unit is aligned to the waveguide unit based on the determining (claim 1 lines 39-40).
Yoel does not teach wherein when aligned to the waveguide unit, an alignment unit of the laser unit reflects toward the alignment waveguide light having a spectral signature of the alignment unit; 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; determining whether the light reflected from the alignment waveguide comprises the spectral signature associated with the alignment unit of the laser unit; wherein the alignment waveguide exhibits a frequency selective response that has the spectral signature; wherein the frequency selective response differs from a reflection from a mirror, wherein other frequencies than the frequency selective response are not returned by the mirror towards the alignment unit and then to the waveguide unit or at least are not returned by the mirror towards the alignment unit and then to the waveguide unit, without being significantly attenuated, thereby reducing or eliminating the reflected radiation from the mirror towards the waveguide unit.
Chao, from the same field of endeavor as Yoel, teaches 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).
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 Chao to Yoel to have wherein when aligned to the waveguide unit, an alignment unit of the laser unit reflects toward the alignment waveguide light having a spectral signature of the alignment unit; 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; determining whether the light reflected from the alignment waveguide comprises the spectral signature associated with the alignment unit of the laser unit; wherein the alignment waveguide exhibits a frequency selective response that has the spectral signature; wherein the frequency selective response differs from a reflection from a mirror, wherein other frequencies than the frequency selective response are not returned by the mirror towards the alignment unit and then to the waveguide unit or at least are not returned by the mirror towards the alignment unit and then to the waveguide unit, without being significantly attenuated, thereby reducing or eliminating the reflected radiation from the mirror towards the waveguide unit in order to improve accuracy and/or provide higher yield due to standardization of the silicon photonics packaging process (para [017] last sentence).
Claim 2 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of US12149052B2 (hereinafter Yoel).
Claim 3 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of US12149052B2 (hereinafter Yoel).
Claim 4 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of US12149052B2 (hereinafter Yoel).
Claim 5 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of US12149052B2 (hereinafter Yoel).
Claim 6 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of US12149052B2 (hereinafter Yoel).
Claim 7 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 of US12149052B2 (hereinafter Yoel).
Claim 8 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of US12149052B2 (hereinafter Yoel).
Claim 9 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 9 of US12149052B2 (hereinafter Yoel).
Claim 10 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of US12149052B2 (hereinafter Yoel).
Claim 11 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of US12149052B2 (hereinafter Yoel).
Claim 12 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of US12149052B2 (hereinafter Yoel).
Claim 13 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of US12149052B2 (hereinafter Yoel).
Claim 14 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of US12149052B2 (hereinafter Yoel).
Claim 15 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of US12149052B2 (hereinafter Yoel) in view of Chao, L. et al., WO 2014112949 A1 (hereinafter Chao).
Regarding claim 15, Yoel teaches a device for aligning a laser unit to a waveguide unit, the device comprising the laser unit and the waveguide unit (claim 13 lines 11-12); wherein the laser unit comprises a laser and an alignment unit (claim 13 lines 13-14); wherein the waveguide unit comprises an alignment waveguide and a coupler (claim 13 lines 15-16); wherein the coupler is configured to receive light from a light source and to provide the light to the alignment waveguide (claim 13 lines 17-19); wherein the alignment waveguide is configured to direct the light towards the laser unit (claim 13 lines 19-20); 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 (claim 13 lines 21-24); 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 (claim 13 lines 25-28); wherein the alignment waveguide is configured to direct the reflected light towards the coupler (claim 13 lines 29-30); and wherein the coupler is configured to direct the reflected light towards a detector (claim 13 lines 31-32).
Yoel does not teach wherein the alignment waveguide exhibits a frequency selective response that has the spectral signature; wherein the frequency selective response differs from a reflection from a mirror, wherein other frequencies than the frequency selective response are not returned by the mirror towards the alignment unit and then to the waveguide unit or at least are not returned by the mirror towards the alignment unit and then to the waveguide unit, without being significantly attenuated, thereby reducing or eliminating the reflected radiation from the mirror towards the waveguide unit.
Chao, from the same field of endeavor as Yoel, teaches 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).
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 Chao to Yoel to have wherein the alignment waveguide exhibits a frequency selective response that has the spectral signature; wherein the frequency selective response differs from a reflection from a mirror, wherein other frequencies than the frequency selective response are not returned by the mirror towards the alignment unit and then to the waveguide unit or at least are not returned by the mirror towards the alignment unit and then to the waveguide unit, without being significantly attenuated, thereby reducing or eliminating the reflected radiation from the mirror towards the waveguide unit in order to improve accuracy and/or provide higher yield due to standardization of the silicon photonics packaging process (para [017] last sentence).
Claim 16 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 14 of US12149052B2 (hereinafter Yoel).
Claim 17 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 15 of US12149052B2 (hereinafter Yoel).
Claim 18 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 16 of US12149052B2 (hereinafter Yoel).
Claim 19 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 17 of US12149052B2 (hereinafter Yoel).
Claim 20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 18 of US12149052B2 (hereinafter Yoel).
Claim 21 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 19 of US12149052B2 (hereinafter Yoel).
Claim 22 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 20 of US12149052B2 (hereinafter Yoel).
Claim 23 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 21of US12149052B2 (hereinafter Yoel).
Claim 24 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 22 of US12149052B2 (hereinafter Yoel).
Claim 25 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 23 of US12149052B2 (hereinafter Yoel).
Claim 26 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of US12149052B2 (hereinafter Yoel).
Claim 27 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of US12149052B2 (hereinafter Yoel).
Claim 28 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 24 of US12149052B2 (hereinafter Yoel).
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 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].
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.
Prior Art not Cited
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
1. US20180010906A1, discloses a grating coupler, and a reflector coupled to the grating coupler.
Conclusion
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, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached at (571) 272-2287. 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