DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The prior art documents submitted by applicant in the Information Disclosure Statements filed on August 29, 2024 and November 26, 2024 have all been considered and made of record (note the attached copy(ies) of form PTO-1449).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “bulk optical component includes a plurality of bulk optical components each having a first surface butt-coupled to a respective one of the first end facets of the first optical waveguide or a respective one of the second end facets of the second optical waveguide” (claim 8, lines 8-11) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Inventorship
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.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 3, “send” is a typographical error and it should be “second”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Doany et al. (US 2017/0003453 A1, herein “Doany”).
Regarding claim 1, Doany discloses an optical arrangement (Figs. 4-5), comprising:
a first optical waveguide (waveguide 202);
a second optical waveguide (waveguide 402 with core 404, as shown the optical device 400 has seven waveguide channels; for brevity, the second waveguide shall be referenced as 402) being arranged to define a gap between a first end facet of the first optical waveguide and a second end facet of the second optical waveguide that faces the first end facet of the first optical waveguide (see Fig. 4);
a bulk optical component (lens array element 100) having a first surface butt-coupled to the first end facet (Fig. 2: edge 204 of waveguide 202) of the first optical waveguide (waveguide 202) or the second end facet of the second optical waveguide; and
a lens (102) disposed on a second surface of the bulk optical component (lens array element 100; separate component from integrated photonic chip), wherein the first optical waveguide (202), the second optical waveguide (402), the bulk optical component (100) and the lens (102) are arranged such that light exiting the first end facet of the first optical waveguide traverses the bulk optical component and is focused by the lens into the second end facet of the second optical waveguide (see ray trace in Fig. 4, Paras [0031]-[0032]).
PNG
media_image1.png
508
738
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 2. Doany discloses the first (202) and second (402) optical waveguides are planar waveguides (formed on photonic chip 200, Para [0032], and optical element 400 or 500 may be waveguide 202 another photonic chip, Para [0033]).
Claim 5. Doany discloses at least one of the first and second optical waveguides is an optical fiber (second waveguides 402/404 may be single mode fiber (SMF), Para [0032]).
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.
Claims 3, 4, 6, 7, 9-17, and 19- 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doany in view of Saito et al. (US 2021/0373244 A1, herein “Saito”).
Regarding claims 3, 4, 6, 9, 11, 13, 15-16, 19, and 20 Doany teach the invention of claim 2, but Doany do not teach:
the planar waveguides are disposed on a common substrate;
a trench disposed in the substrate to form the gap between the first end facet of the first optical waveguide and the second end facet of the second optical waveguide;
the first surface of the bulk optical component is butt-coupled to the first end facet of the first optical waveguide and the second surface of the bulk optical component on which the lens is disposed is an output surface;
a refractive index matching material disposed between the first end facet of the first optical waveguide and the first surface of the bulk optical component;
the bulk optical component is magneto-optic component;
Saito teaches a planar optical circuit having first waveguide (left – unlabeled) and second waveguide (right 502a) disposed on a common substrate (501). A trench (groove 503) disposed on the substrate (501) to form the gap between the first end face of the first optical waveguide (left waveguide) and the second end facet of the second optical waveguide (502a). The first surface of the bulk optical component (optical element 504, left side) is butt-coupled to the first end facet of the first optical waveguide (left waveguide) and the second surface of the bulk optical component (504, right side) is an output surface (optical element 504 is a spot size converter (Para [0029]), thus, the light in the device of Fig. 13 is bi-directional). A refractive index matching material (505, Para [0027], index matching material is transparent) disposed between the first end facet of the first optical waveguide (left waveguide) and the first surface of the bulk optical component (504, left). Saito further teaches the optical component may be magneto-optic component such that the optical circuit can have an optical isolator (Para [0103]) to prevent feedback from the lens and maintains laser stability.
PNG
media_image2.png
339
496
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recognize the optical circuit taught by Saito is well-known to one skilled in the art. It would have been obvious to modify Doany optical circuit by providing a common substrate for a leveled surface to align the first and second photonic chips where the first and second waveguides are disposed thereon. A groove would be provided on the substrate for mounting the bulk optical component onto the common substrate and aligning the bulk optical component to the first waveguide and the second waveguide. Furthermore, it is well-known that a matching refractive index adhesive is provided to bond the mounted bulk optical component to the groove in the substrate and prevent scattering loss due to Fresnel reflection (Para [0024]-[0029]). One motivation for modifying the optical circuit of Doany’s invention with the common substrate of Saito for the purpose of mounting the bulk optical component and couple light efficiently.
Regarding the claims 15-16 and 19-20, the examiner considers the method steps reciting—the method of forming an optical arrangement—is not patentably distinct from the product claims 1-14. Thus, the rejection of the method steps recited in claims 15-16 and 19-20 are incorporated within the rejection of the product claims. See above.
Regarding claims 7 and 10, Doany discloses the invention of claim 1, and further discloses the photonic chips (200 and 500, Fig. 5) can be rearranged such that the first waveguide is disposed on chip (500) and the second waveguide is disposed on chip (200), the first surface of the bulk optical component (100) is butt-coupled to the second end facet of the second optical waveguide (Fig. 5: 202). In this arrangement the second surface of the bulk optical component (504) on which the lens is disposed is an input surface (see ray trace in Fig. 5).
PNG
media_image3.png
482
727
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Doany do not teach a refractive index matching material disposed between the second end facet of the second optical waveguide and the first surface of the bulk optical component.
Saito teaches bonding the bulk optical component (Fig. 13: 504) to the first waveguide (left waveguide) and the second waveguide (502).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Doany’s optical circuit with the substrate and refractive index matching bonding material to secure the bulk optical component to the waveguide or photonic chip. One motivation for using index matching bonding material is to prevent coupling loss due to Fresnel reflection (Saito: Para [0026]), thus increasing coupling efficiency.
Regarding claim 12, Doany in view of Saito (herein “Doany/Saito”) teach the invention of claim 11, and Saito further teaches the optically transparent material (resin layer 107a) has a refractive index less than a refractive index of the lens (focus lens 106a) (Para [0061]). Saito teaches the lower refractive index of the resin layer with respect to the focus lens allows emitted light from end face (104) through the resin layer (107a) toward the bulk optical component (103) with reduced diffraction spreading thus reduced propagation loss (Para [0062]).
Regarding claim 14, Doany/Saito teach the invention of claim 1, Saito further teaches the bulk optical component can be an optical filter (embodiment in Fig. 1, optical element 103 is a wavelength filter, Para [0061]).
Regarding claim 17, Doany/Saito teach the invention of claim 16, and Doany further teaches the bulk optical component (100) and the lens (102) formed thereon (Doany Fig. 1) defines an integrated functional unit. The combined teaching of Doany in view of Saito would yield the integrated function unit is placed in the trench so that the first optical waveguide, the integrated functional unit, and the second optical waveguide are aligned with one another.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doany.
Doany discloses the invention of claim 1 and Doany further discloses:
the first optical waveguide includes a plurality of first optical waveguides (seven waveguides 202) defining a first optical array;
the second optical waveguide includes a plurality of second optical waveguides (seven waveguide channels or cores 404) defining a second optical array, the first and second waveguide arrays being arranged to define a plurality of gaps between a first end facet (204) of each of the first optical waveguides and a corresponding second facet of one of the second optical waveguides (corresponding distal ends of each of the seven cores 404);
the lens includes a plurality of lenses (seven lenses 102) each respectively disposed on the second surface of the bulk optical components, the first optical array (200), the second optical array (400), the bulk optical component (100) and the lenses (202) being arranged such that light exiting the first end facet (204) of each of the first optical waveguides traverses one of the bulk optical component and is focused by one of the lenses (102) into the second end facet of a corresponding one of the second optical waveguides (402).
However, Doany does not explicitly teach the bulk optical component includes a plurality of bulk optical components each having a first surface butt-coupled to a respective one of the first end facets of the first optical waveguides.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to increase the number of bulk optical components to support additional number of lenses for providing higher input/output capacity, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8 (1977). One motivation would be to scale the optical arrangement for supporting high-capacity input/output coupling.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doany/Saito as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Kachru et al. (US 2016/0246004 A1, herein “Kachru”).
Doany/Saito teaches the method step of claim 17, but Doany/Saito do not explicitly teach the performing an active alignment process.
Kachru teaches coupling light from waveguide (204) to lens array (202) and to waveguide (206) requires performing active alignment process and fine tune the alignment of light for improving light transmission efficiency (Fig. 2, Para [0022] and [0031]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recognize active alignment process is well-known in the art for fine tuning the optical alignment between the components to achieve high coupling efficiency.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doany/Saito as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Doany et al. (US 9,227,169 B2, herein “Patent ‘169”).
Doany/Saito teaches the method step of claim 15, but Doany/Saito do not explicitly teach the lens is formed on the bulk optical component using photolithography technique.
Patent ‘169 teaches the steps of fabricating lens array (102) on substrate (glass substrate 1300, Col. 9, lines 3-14) using photolithography technique (Col. 9, lines 23-44).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the lens array on the bulk optical component of Doany/Saito optical arrangement using photolithography technique as taught by Patent ‘169. One motivation would be motivation would be to process the bulk optical component using standard CMOS processes and techniques such that the bulk optical component can be fully compatible with wafer processing techniques of the optical arrangement (Patent ‘169: Col. 8, line 56 to Col. 9, line 2).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. PTO-892:E-I.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Erin D Chiem whose telephone number is (571)272-3102. The examiner can normally be reached 10 am - 6 pm.
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, Thomas A. Hollweg can be reached at (571) 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 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.
/ERIN D CHIEM/Examiner, Art Unit 2874
/THOMAS A HOLLWEG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights