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 . 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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I (claims 1-5, 8-11, 16-18 in the reply filed on 07/20/2026 is acknowledged.
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 8-11 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.
Claims 8-11 recite the limitations of "the first sidewall, the second sidewall, the third sidewall, and the fourth sidewall. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 8-11 are each individually dependent on claim 1, and claim 1 only recites the limitation of a plurality of sidewall, but does not describe a first, second, third, or fourth sidewall.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koos (U.S PG Pub 20130223788A1), Mir Shafiei (U.S PG Pub 20180017748A1), and Badehi (U.S PG Pub 20180284372A1).
Regarding claim 1, Koos is drawn to the art of forming waveguides for connection between substrates/carriers with electrical/optical components (Abstract; [0037-0038]). Koos discloses a method of forming waveguides by irradiating with laser (30) in specific spots i.e. selectively solidifying or curing a resist material (which can be liquid) [0038]; [0066], and discloses forming the waveguide structures (20-22), by structuring taking place in the volume of the resist material with the aid of direct-writing lithographic methods [0038]. Koos also discloses that these waveguides connect or couple at input/output waveguides (5, 6 – waveguides integrated within substrate) formed on optical components (2-6) on a substrate (10), and that these elements are on either side of the resist material (11, 12) i.e. at one distal end to a second distal end (see figures 10-15). Koos also discloses that the optical waveguides are integrated in the substrate, and that the other optical components can be formed on carriers and then attached on a substrate [0039], while also disclosing the substrate to be silicon [0039]. Koos also discloses light in the UV, visible, IR, X-ray range can be used for the lithographic definition of the waveguides and that it has a specific intensity and wavelength (given specific light is selected) [0065].
With regards to the step of forming a pool with sidewalls i.e. to contain the resist material, it is implied by the disclosure of Koos, for such a pool/reservoir to necessarily be present, if the resist material (11,12) is liquid [0066]. In figures 10-15, it can be seen that the resist material is on the substrate, and that in this scenario, if it is liquid, it cannot be contained without a pool/trench/reservoir or cavity. Thus, it is implied that such a structure is present when the resist material is liquid.
In the event the applicant disagrees with the above rationale, it is known from both Mir Shafiei and Badehi, a structure to contain resist material.
Mir Shafiei, drawn also to the art of interconnecting electrical/optical components with photonic wire bonds (optical waveguides) [0005], discloses a photoresist material that is used to form the photonic wire bonds upon exposure (the photoresist material solidifies) to laser (the photoresist material solidifies) [0021], wherein the photonic wire bonds are formed in and through a glass body (22) i.e. the photoresist material is contained in a glass body (interpreted as a pool/reservoir for the liquid) (figures 5-6). Mir Shafiei also discloses connecting optical components (14-16) at distal ends of the glass body to one another through the photonic wire bonds (figure 6). Mir Shafiei also discloses that the exposure by laser is selective [0038-0043].
It would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan to have modified the method of Koos, with the glass body, as disclosed by Mir Shafiei, to arrive at the instant invention, in order to have a single-step process to interconnect photonic circuits [0045].
In the event the applicant does not agree with the interpretation of the glass body as the pool/reservoir, it is further known from Badehi, to have trenches with sidewalls which contain liquid optical transmission material (see below).
Badehi, also drawn to the art of optical waveguides and connecting optical components (Abstract; [0003]; [0037]), discloses reservoirs, trenches, and channels (204, 212, and 206), and discloses liquid optical transmission material being filled in the reservoirs and flowing into the trenches and channels ([0047]; Figure 3). Badehi also discloses that the liquid optical transmission medium allows optical signals to pass through [0012], and discloses using light irradiation to allow the liquid materials to cure [0057] to form the optical waveguides.
It would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan to have modified the method of Koos and Mir Shafiei, with the trenches of Badehi, to arrive at the instant invention, in order to have cost-effective optical jumpers and optical waveguides for connecting optical components [0003].
Regarding claims 2-3, both Koos and Mir Shafiei have disclosed selectively using irradiation to irradiate and illuminate a plurality of regions of the resist material to form the optical waveguides (see claim 1 rejection above). Further, Koos has disclosed the cross-sectional geometry of the waveguides to be varied, and wherein the optical waveguides traverses a path from the first end to a second end comprising a horizontal component and vertical component, defined by functions (see figures 7a-7b and 10-15; [0057] & [0049-0051]).
Regarding claim 4, Koos as modified by Mir Shafiei and Badehi, discloses the instant limitations. Koos has disclosed the resist (11, 12) being on the substrate and contacting the optical components or on the optical components (2,3) (see figures 10-15). Further, Koos as modified by Mir Shafiei and Badehi, discloses a reservoir or trench with sidewalls, and thus this combination discloses the optical components forming sidewalls or being mounted on sidewalls of the reservoirs and sidewalls being formed within the substrate (given that the trenches/reservoirs are formed on the substrate). Finally, Koos has disclosed the optical components being mounted on carriers on the substrate [0039].
Claim(s) 5, 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koos (U.S PG Pub 20130223788A1), Mir Shafiei (U.S PG Pub 20180017748A1), Badehi (U.S PG Pub 20180284372A1), and Dietrich (U.S Patent 11169446B2).
Regarding claim 5, Koos discloses the substrate being silicone [0039], and discloses the optical components being mounted on carriers [0039], while also disclosing the optical waveguide (5, 6) being integrated on the substrate [0038]. Koos does not explicitly the optical component being an optical emitter (i.e. diode as an example), however, this is known from Dietrich (see below).
Dietrich, drawn also to the art of an optical system with multiple optical components and an optical connection between (Abstract), discloses a method of forming optical waveguides with direct lithography methods using a resist (57) and having a cavity (55) (Abstract; Column 9, lines 8-38; Figures 15c-15d). Dietrich also discloses the optical components being various different components including surface emitting or edge emitting components and diodes (Column 10, lines 6-40).
It would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan to have modified the method of Koos, with the second optical component being an optical emitter (diode), as disclosed by Dietrich, to arrive at the instant invention, in order to be able to have an efficient optical connection and to have less requirements in positional accuracy (Column 7, lines 45-55).
Regarding claims 16-18, Koos as modified by Mir Shafiei and Badehi, discloses the instant limitations. Koos has disclosed the resist (11, 12) being on the substrate and contacting the optical components or on the optical components (2,3) (see figures 10-15). Further, Koos as modified by Mir Shafiei and Badehi, discloses a reservoir or trench or recess in the substrate with sidewalls, and thus this combination discloses the optical components forming sidewalls or being mounted on sidewalls of the reservoirs and sidewalls being formed within the substrate (given that the trenches/reservoirs are formed on the substrate). Finally, Koos has disclosed the optical components being mounted on carriers on the substrate [0039]. Koos also discloses the optical waveguide (5, 6) being integrated on the substrate [0038]. Koos has not explicitly disclosed the second optical component being an edge-emitting component, however, this limitation is known from Dietrich (see below).
Dietrich, drawn also to the art of an optical system with multiple optical components and an optical connection between (Abstract), discloses a method of forming optical waveguides with direct lithography methods using a resist (57) and having a cavity (55) (Abstract; Column 9, lines 8-38; Figures 15c-15d). Dietrich also discloses the optical components being various different components including surface emitting or edge emitting components and diodes, and specifically superluminescent diode (Column 10, lines 6-40). Dietrich also discloses the diode being edge-emitting and an optical waveguide being disposed on the facet of the diode (Column 10, lines 20-25). Thus, Koos, Mir Shafiei, and Badehi, as modified by Dietrich, discloses an edge emitting device with a facet, and an optical waveguide being disposed upon the facet (i.e. predetermined location).
It would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan to have modified the method of Koos, with the second optical component being an edge emitter as claimed, as disclosed by Dietrich, to arrive at the instant invention, in order to be able to have an efficient optical connection and to have less requirements in positional accuracy (Column 7, lines 45-55).
Claim(s) 8 & 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koos (U.S PG Pub 20130223788A1), Mir Shafiei (U.S PG Pub 20180017748A1), Badehi (U.S PG Pub 20180284372A1), and Chang (U.S Patent 5046808).
Regarding claim 8, Koos, Mir Shafiei, and Badehi, do not explicitly disclose the third and fourth sidewalls being sides of a groove within the substrate, and an optical fiber being within the substrate. However, this limitation is known from Chang (see below).
Chang, drawn also to the art of integrated optics chip, with waveguides and slots to mount optical fibers (Abstract), discloses the substrate having grooves in a Y-shape (slots 22, 26, 28, and 12, 14, & 16), through which an optical fiber (38 & 40) is fed (Figure 1; Column 3, lines 27-47). It can be seen from the figure 1 that the grooves have a plurality of sidewalls, and that the shape of the sidewalls limit movement of the optical fiber when it is mounted in the groove (see figure 1 & figures 2 & 6).
It would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan to have modified the method of Koos, with the grooves having the sidewalls and preventing motion of an optical fiber within the groove, as disclosed by Chang, to arrive at the instant invention, in order to be able to guide optical signals along the selected axes of propagation (Column 2, lines 19-22).
Regarding claim 10, Chang has already disclosed the sidewalls forming a second and first side of the groove (see figure 1 – the slots have two ends and are formed by sidewalls), while also disclosing groove ends being portions of the sidewalls and limiting movement of the optical fiber on both ends of the groove (see figures 1,2, & 6).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 & 11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record does not reasonably show or suggest the limitations of a region where the optical fiber abuts that fills with another liquid disposed between the optical fiber and the groove to provide repeatable and reproducible positioning of an end of the optical fiber against the end of the groove (as is claimed in claims 9 & 11).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABHISHEK A PATWARDHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8431. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 7:30am-5pm.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at (571)270-5038. 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.
/ABHISHEK A PATWARDHAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1746
/MICHAEL N ORLANDO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1746
