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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan on 02/10/2022. A certified copy of the JP2022-019894 application was received 01/28/2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
The prior art documents submitted by applicant in the Information Disclosure Statement filed 08/06/2024 have all been considered and made of record.
Joint Inventors
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With regards to claim 1, the claim recites “…a plurality of cores in the cladding layer… and at least one of the plurality of cores includes a part overlapping the joint area in a plan view, wherein the cladding layer includes… a joint area being frame-shaped and surrounding the recess, and includes a plurality of ridges extending along the plurality of cores, and at least one of the plurality of cores includes a part overlapping the joint area in a plan view, and the part includes an oblique portion extending in a direction oblique to a width direction from an outer peripheral edge toward an inner peripheral edge of the joint area…”.
The claim only introduces “…a plurality of cores…”, but subsequently recites “…at least one of the plurality of cores includes…”. It is unclear if there are multiple pluralities of cores and one of said pluralities includes a part overlapping the joint area, or if one of the cores within the plurality of cores includes a part overlapping the joint area. Examiner notes that the indefiniteness relating to the above plurality of cores is of further significance in dependent claim 2 which introduces intervals between the pluralities or individual cores.
It is unclear if the “…a direction…” or the “…a width direction…” is oriented from an outer peripheral edge toward an inner peripheral edge of the joint area. Similarly, it is unclear which peripheral edge(s) of the of the joint area should be used when determining the direction. Examiner notes that the indefiniteness relating to the above directions is of further significance in dependent claims 5-8 which each introduce other directions oriented with respect to the width direction above.
The claim is indefinite because the limitations create confusion regarding the structure of the claimed device.
Examiner’s note: For the purposes of further examination, examiner will interpret the above limitations as specifying that one of the cores within the plurality of cores includes a part overlapping the joint area, and the width direction as extending from an outer peripheral edge toward an inner peripheral edge of the joint area in an elongate direction of the device.
Claims 2-11 inherit the indefiniteness of claim 1 on which they depend.
With regards to claim 8, the claim recites “…wherein the plurality of ridges includes side surfaces including a side surface sloping at a greater angle than another side surface…”. The claim does not state a reference from which the degree of slope is determined. It is unclear if the sloping angle is to be considered from a vertical or horizontal axis (for example). The claim is indefinite because the limitations create confusion regarding the structure of the claimed device.
Examiner’s note: For the purposes of further examination, examiner will interpret the slope as being determined with respect to the length direction, and will interpret the length direction as being perpendicular to the width direction.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Komatsu (US 5358896 A).
With regards to claim 1, Komatsu discloses an optical waveguide board, comprising:
a substrate including a first surface (Figs9-12/Substrate 101 and first surface [top surface]);
a cladding layer on the first surface, the cladding layer including a facing surface facing the first surface and an upper surface opposite to the facing surface, the cladding layer including a recess on the upper surface (Cladding layer [102, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, and 110], facing surface [bottom-most surface], upper surface [top surface], and recess [as outline below]);
PNG
media_image1.png
536
459
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a plurality of element mount portions in the recess (Element mount portion [exemplary single instance indicated below]); and
PNG
media_image2.png
325
388
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a plurality of cores in the cladding layer (Plurality of cores 4), the plurality of cores extending from the recess to outside the recess in a plan view (Fig9), wherein the cladding layer includes, on the upper surface, a joint area being frame-shaped and surrounding the recess, and includes a plurality of ridges extending along the plurality of cores (Joint area [as indicated below] and plurality of ridges [ridge structure of elements 4, 107, and 108]), and at least one of the plurality of cores includes a part overlapping the joint area in a plan view, and the part includes an oblique portion extending in a direction oblique to a width direction from an outer peripheral edge toward an inner peripheral edge of the joint area in the cladding layer (Part [branching portion of elements 4, 107, and 108 within outlined region]).
PNG
media_image3.png
536
459
media_image3.png
Greyscale
With regards to claim 2, Komatsu discloses the optical waveguide board according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of cores is at larger intervals from one another at an inner peripheral edge of the joint area than at an outer peripheral edge of the joint area (Fig9).
With regards to claim 3, Komatsu discloses the optical waveguide board according to claim 1, wherein the at least one of the plurality of cores includes a curved portion curved in a plan view in the oblique portion (Fig9).
With regards to claim 4, Komatsu discloses the optical waveguide board according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of cores includes a merging portion in which the plurality of cores merges with one another outside the outer peripheral edge of the joint area (Fig9).
With regards to claim 5, Komatsu discloses the optical waveguide board according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of cores overlaps a middle portion of the joint area in a length direction intersecting with the width direction (Fig9/Middle portion [as indicated below]).
PNG
media_image4.png
424
459
media_image4.png
Greyscale
With regards to claim 6, Komatsu discloses the optical waveguide board according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of cores includes a first core located in a middle portion of the joint area in a length direction intersecting with the width direction, and a second core spaced from the first core in the length direction, and the first core and the second core are at a larger interval from each other at the inner peripheral edge of the joint area than at the outer peripheral edge of the joint area (Fig9/First core and second core [“FC” and “SC” as indicated below]).
PNG
media_image5.png
536
459
media_image5.png
Greyscale
With regards to claim 7, Komatsu discloses the optical waveguide board according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of cores is located in a middle portion of the joint area in a length direction intersecting with the width direction at the outer peripheral edge, and the plurality of cores is at larger intervals from one another at the inner peripheral edge of the joint area than at the outer peripheral edge of the joint area (Fig9/Middle portion as indicated below).
PNG
media_image4.png
424
459
media_image4.png
Greyscale
With regards to claim 8, Komatsu discloses the optical waveguide board according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of ridges includes side surfaces including a side surface sloping at a greater angle than another side surface, and the side surface sloping at the greater angle than the other side surface is located outermost of the side surfaces in a length direction intersecting with the width direction of the joint area (Side surface [“S” as indicated below] and another side surface [“AS” as indicated below]).
PNG
media_image6.png
180
399
media_image6.png
Greyscale
With regards to claim 9, Komatsu discloses the optical waveguide board according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of ridges includes a rounded ridge corner in the joint area (Fig9/Rounded ridge corner [rounded side portions of elements 4]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komatsu (US 5358896 A) as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Kinghorn (US 20180052290 A1).
With regards to claim 10, Komatsu discloses an optical waveguide package, comprising: the optical waveguide board according to claim 1. Komatsu does not disclose a lid covering an opening of the recess on the cladding layer in the optical waveguide board and bonded to the joint area with a bond. However, the practice of covering a recess in an optical waveguide board exists in the art as exemplified by Kinghorn.
Komatusu discloses an optical waveguide package with a joint area and a cladding layer recess containing elements coupled to a waveguide. Kinghorn discloses an optical waveguide board with a cladding layer recess containing elements coupled to a waveguide and a lid covering an opening of the recess on the cladding layer and bonded to a joint area with a bond (Kinghorn/Figs5-8&20-21/Cladding layer 901, lid 999, bond 970). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cover the recess of Komatsu with a lid as suggested by Kinghorn since doing so would further insulate elements within the recess and further protect them from physical damage.
With regards to claim 11, Komatsu and Kinghorn together disclose a light source module, comprising:
the optical waveguide package according to claim 10; and
light emitters in the plurality of element mount portions in the optical waveguide package (Fig9/Light emitters 5).
Conclusion
This prior art, made of record, but not relied upon, is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure since the following references have similar structure and/or use similar structure and/or similar optical elements to what is disclosed and/or claimed in the instant application:
Lenef (US 20230092838 A1) [Figs1-3]
Rasch (US 5802222 A) [Fig9]
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Marc E Manheim whose telephone number is (703)756-1873. The examiner can normally be reached 6:30am - 5pm E.T., Monday - Tuesday and Thursday - Friday.
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.
/MARC E MANHEIM/Examiner, Art Unit 2874
/THOMAS A HOLLWEG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights