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.
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 5, and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 3: A space is missing between P_ap and applied
Regarding claim 5: A space is missing between BLF and is
Regarding claim 14: “The packaging arrangement as defined in claim 19” has a typo, since claim 19 does not exist. It is understood that the claim should say “The packaging arrangement as defined in claim 1”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-15 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.
Regarding claim 1: Claim 1 is directed to “A packaging arrangement for a fiber-based optical device” and states that it comprises “a substrate” and “a plurality of bonds for fixing the fiber-based optical device to the substrate”. The claim further includes limitations relating to the fiber-based optical device including a “plurality of bonds disposed along a length of the fiber-based optical device”, but the claim does not positively recite that the packaging arrangement includes the fiber-based optical device. This should be positively recited so that it is clear that the fiber-based optical device is part of the claimed arrangement. For the purpose of examination, it is considered that the packaging arrangement comprises the fiber-based optical device, in addition to the substrate and the plurality of bonds.
Regarding claim 1: The term “impairment” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “impairment” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. A degree of bend-induced loss may be acceptable in some circumstances but not others, so it is unclear what level of loss would render a device to be in a state of “impairment”. Because of this, it is unclear what length L between a pair of bonds is necessary in order to restrict the unsupported section from “bending beyond a radius of curvature at which bend-induced impairment occurs”. For the purpose of examination, “impairment” is interpreted as not allowing any light to be coupled through the fiber across the unsupported section.
Regarding claim 1: The term “breaking in a mechanically-weakened zone” is unclear for several reasons. First, it is unclear whether “breaking” means “to separate into pieces as a result of a blow, shock, or strain” or “to render inoperable”. If the latter, it would also be a relative term which renders the claim indefinite, since a degree of loss may be acceptable for some applications but render a device inoperable for other applications. Does the term “breaking” include small cracks or distortions, or does the unsupported section have to entirely fracture into separate pieces in order to be considered broken? Additionally, it is unclear whether the “mechanically-weakened zone” is a required feature of the fiber-based optical device regardless of the breaking or if the mechanically-weakened zone is a hypothetical zone created by straining the fiber-based optical device due to strain from the changes in the length of the substrate relative to the unsupported section of the fiber-based optical device due to the differences in CTE. Finally, what state or standard is the “mechanically-weakened zone” compared to? If materials are processed to form a fiber-based optical device, at what point is the “non-mechanically-weakened” reference point set? Or is the “mechanically-weakened zone” mechanically-weakened compared to another zone of the fiber-based optical device? For the purpose of examination, “breaking in a mechanically-weakened zone” is interpreted as is interpreted as entering a state of not allowing any light to be coupled through the fiber across the unsupported section, and any zone can be considered a “mechanically-weakened zone” compared to a suitable reference.
Regarding claim 2: “the glass material of the fiber-based optical device” lacks proper antecedent basis. For the purpose of examination, this is interpreted as requiring the fiber-based optical device to comprise a glass material.
Regarding claim 2: It is unclear what is required by the equation. Since it is a model for the critical buckling load of a slender column, it is not understood to exactly describe a physical fiber-based optical device, but rather be an approximation. Is the claim simply requiring that the fiber-based optical device have a slender-column shape? For the purpose of examination, it is interpreted that any optical fiber and/or fiber bundle and/or long, narrow, fiber-based optical device would meet this claim limitation.
Regarding claim 2: “the cross-section” lacks proper antecedent basis. For the purpose of examination, it is interpreted as “a cross-section”.
Regarding claim 2: “K is a column effective length factor equal to 0.5 for an unsupported length disposed between a pair of fixed points” is unclear because it is unclear whether the claim requires K to be equal to 0.5 or other possible values of K would read on the claim. For the purpose of examination, K is understood to be limited to 0.5, i.e. the unsupported section is required to be disposed between a pair of fixed points.
Regarding claim 7: “wherein the fiber based optical device operates over a temperature range of -40 degrees C to +85 degrees C” – is this the same temperature range of the “defined temperature range”? For the purpose of examination, it is interpreted to be referring to the “defined temperature range”.
Regarding claim 8: “the metal substrate” lacks proper antecedent basis. For the purpose of examination, it is interpreted that the substrate comprises a metal material.
Regarding claim 10: “the operating range” lacks proper antecedent basis. For the purpose of examination, this is interpreted as “the defined temperature range”.
Regarding claim 11: The term “in proximity” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “in proximity” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Because this term is unclear, it is unclear what is required by “a first material with a lower CTE value disposed in proximity to the mechanically-weakened zone”. For the purpose of examination, any distance is considered to be “in proximity”.
Regarding claim 11: Additionally, “a lower CTE value” is unclear because it does not say what it the CTE value is being compared to. For the purpose of examination, it is interpreted as a lower CTE value than a CTE value of a second material of the hybrid material.
Regarding claim 14: The term “closely-packed” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “closely” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Because this term is unclear, the limitation “a plurality of closely-packed optical fibers” is unclear. For the purpose of examination, any spacing between fibers is considered to meet the standard of “closely-packed”.
Regarding claim 15: “unable to support mode coupling and bend-induced loss” is unclear for several reasons. First, the claim does not require the unsupported section of the fiber-based optical device to be a section of optical fiber. If it is a generic unsupported section of a fiber-based optical device, it is unclear if it should otherwise be able to support mode coupling and bend-induced loss, or if it could be a structure entirely irrelevant to mode coupling and bend-induced loss. Even if the claim is limited to an unsupported section of optical fiber, an inability to support mode coupling is dependent on many parameters not defined by the claim or the specification. Would the fiber necessarily exhibit mode coupling in an alternative state where the bonds are spaced further apart? What structure does the fiber have that prevents the mode coupling?
Regarding claims 2-15: Dependent claims 2-15 inherently contain all of the deficiencies of any base and/or intervening claims from which they depend.
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 1-5, 7-12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hattori et al. (US Patent No. 5,208,883; hereinafter Hattori).
Regarding claim 1: Hattori disclosesA packaging arrangement for a fiber-based optical device (Fig. 1), comprising: a substrate (Fig. 1, second reinforcing substrate 16; as applied to claims 11-12, substrate also considered to comprise first reinforcing substrate 15) for supporting the fiber-based optical device, the substrate formed of material that experiences contraction relative to the fiber-based optical device at low temperature extremes (see col. 3, line 22, substrate taught to be Invar and col. 2, lines 34-35, optical fiber is made of quartz glass; Invar experiences contraction relative to the fiber-based optical device at low temperature extremes due to their different CTEs; see also col. 4, lines 48-64); and a plurality of bonds (Fig. 1, adhesives 14 and 17) for fixing the fiber-based optical device to the substrate, the plurality of bonds disposed along a length of the fiber-based optical device such that an unsupported section of the fiber-based optical device of length L between a pair of bonds (unsupported length of fiber portion 13 between adhesives 14) is restricted from either one of: (1) bending beyond a radius of curvature at which bend-induced impairment occurs, and (2) breaking in a mechanically-weakened zone along the unsupported section during operation of the fiber-based optical device across a defined temperature range (see col. 4, line 65-col. 5, line 1; this level of insertion loss is considered to not constitute an impaired state; thus, the unsupported length is considered to be restricted from bending beyond a radius of curvature at which bend-induced impairment occurs, and restricted from breaking in a mechanically-weakened zone along the unsupported section during operation of the fiber-based optical device across a defined temperature range from -40 degrees C to 85 degrees C).
Regarding claim 2: Hattori disclosesThe packaging arrangement as defined in claim 1 (as applied above), wherein the defined length L is defined as a function of a critical buckling load P_cr, where
P
c
r
=
π
2
E
I
K
L
2
and E is a Young’s modulus of the glass material of the fiber-based optical device, I is a minimum area moment of inertia of the cross-section of the fiber-based optical device, and K is a column effective length factor equal to 0.5 for an unsupported length disposed between a pair of fixed points (the Hattori device inherently has a defined length L, a Young’s modulus E, a minimum area moment of inertia of the cross-section I; the column effective length factor K is considered to be 0.5 for the claimed configuration; from this, P_cr can be obtained from the equation; further, the fiber-based optical device is considered to be a slender-column shape; therefore, this limitation it not considered to distinguish the claim from the prior art device).
Regarding claim 3: Hattori discloses the packaging arrangement as defined in claim 2. The limitation “wherein a buckling load factor (BLF) is used in a determination of the defined length L, the BLF defined as a ratio of P_cr to a maximum load P_ap applied as a compressive load on the unsupported section of the fiber-based optical device” is being treated as a product-by-process limitation. As set forth in MPEP 2113, product-by-process claims are NOT limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only to the structure implied by the steps. Since the device has the claimed structure, it is considered to meet the limitations of the claim.
Regarding claim 4: Hattori disclosesThe packaging arrangement as defined in claim 3 (as applied above) wherein the maximum load P_ap is related to a maximum contraction of the substrate at a lowest temperature value within the operating temperature range (at minimum, this will contribute to the maximum load P_app applied at a lowest temperature value within the operating temperature range; furthermore, the device has the claimed structure so to the extent that additional forces are applied to the device during operation, they are not considered to distinguish from the claim).
Regarding claim 5: Hattori disclosesThe packaging arrangement as defined in claim 4 (as applied above) wherein the defined length L is chosen such that the BLF is greater than 1 (there exists a temperature range for which this is true in the Hattori device; since claim 1 does not require the temperature range to be -40 degrees C to +85 degrees C, the temperature range can be appropriately selected to satisfy this inequality; additionally, Hattori suggests that the applied stress is minimal due to the configuration of their device, see col. 4, lines 20-30).
Regarding claim 7: Hattori disclosesThe packaging arrangement as defined in claim 1 (as applied above), wherein the fiber based optical device operates over a temperature range of -40 degrees C to +85 degrees C (see col. 4, line 65-col. 5, line 1).
Regarding claim 8: Hattori disclosesThe packaging arrangement as defined in claim 1 (as applied above), wherein the plurality of bonds further comprise a pair of termination bonds located at opposing ends of the metal substrate (see soft adhesive 17 at the ends of the Invar substrate 16in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 9: Hattori disclosesThe packaging arrangement as defined in claim 1 (as applied above), wherein the fiber based optical device includes a mechanically-weakened zone within the unsupported section (portion 13 is processed by fusing and drawing the optical fiber, see col. 2, lines 55-60; therefore it is considered to include a mechanically-weakened zone within the unsupported section).
Regarding claim 10: Hattori discloses the packaging arrangement as defined in claim 9, as applied above. Regarding the limitation “wherein the defined length L is selected such that the mechanically-weakened zone remains in compression across the operating range of the packaged fiber-based optical device below a temperature associated with zero stress on the packaged fiber-based optical device”: When a structure recited in a reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. See MPEP 2112.01. [insert ref] teaches a grating coupler that is substantially identical to that of the claimed invention, therefore the claimed property of “[insert property]” is presumed to be inherent. The burden is on the applicant to show that the prior art device does not inherently possess the claimed properties. See MPEP 2112.01.
The examiner notes that if the claimed structure does not inherently possess the claimed properties, then the claims would be incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections necessary to clearly and precisely define the invention, wherein the structure necessary to provide the claimed properties is essential.
Regarding claim 11: Hattori discloses The packaging arrangement as defined in claim 10 (as applied above), wherein the substrate comprises a hybrid of at least two different materials with two different CTE values, a first material with a lower CTE value disposed in proximity to the mechanically-weakened zone (see col. 4, lines 48-65; the first reinforcing substrate 15 disposed in proximity to the mechanically-weakened zone is quartz, while the second material of second reinforcing substrate 16 is Invar; quartz has a lower CTE value compared to Invar).
Regarding claim 12: Hattori disclosesThe packaging arrangement as defined in claim 11 (as applied above), wherein the first material with the lower CTE value takes the form of an inset disposed within a recessed area of the substrate in proximity to the mechanically-weakened zone (Fig. 1 shows that the first reinforcing substrate 15 takes the form of an inset disposed within a recessed area of the second reinforcing substrate 16 in proximity to the mechanically-weakened zone).
Regarding claim 14: Hattori disclosesThe packaging arrangement as defined in claim 1 (as applied above) wherein the fiber-based optical device includes a tapered fiber bundle (Fig. 1, left or right half of unsupported section between adhesive bonds 14 are considered to be tapered fiber bundles, as they are joints between a plurality of fibers and a fused fiber having a tapered structure) having a mechanically-weakened zone section (portion 13 is processed by fusing and drawing the optical fiber, see col. 2, lines 55-60; therefore it is considered to be a mechanically-weakened zone, including a section thereof at the interface between an input section comprising a plurality of closely-packed optical fibers and an output section comprising a fused, tapered joining) at an interface between an input section comprising a plurality of closely-packed optical fibers (Fig. 1, fibers 12) and an output section comprising a fused, tapered joining of the plurality of optical fibers (see fused, tapered joining of the plurality of optical fibers in the center of region 13).
Claims 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen (US Patent No. 6,031,948; hereinafter Chen).
Regarding claim 1: Chen discloses A packaging arrangement for a fiber-based optical device (see col. 6, line 60-col. 7, line 15), comprising: a substrate (composite structure comprising two smaller substrates of aluminum and large substrate comprising invar) for supporting the fiber-based optical device, the substrate formed of material that experiences contraction relative to the fiber-based optical device at low temperature extremes (see col. 3, lines 40-41, fiber is silica; see col. 6, line 60-col. 7, line 15, substrate formed of aluminum and invar, materials that experiences contraction relative to the fiber-based optical device at low temperature extremes); and a plurality of bonds (see col. 6, lines 65-66; the fiber is secured to the two smaller substrates by a plurality of bonds; best represented as mounting points 81 in Figs. 8a-8b) for fixing the fiber-based optical device to the substrate, the plurality of bonds disposed along a length of the fiber-based optical device such that an unsupported section of the fiber-based optical device of length L between a pair of bonds (best represented in 8a-8b, respectively, portions of fibers 43 and 44, respectively, between mounting portions 81) is restricted from either one of: (1) bending beyond a radius of curvature at which bend-induced impairment occurs, and (2) breaking in a mechanically-weakened zone along the unsupported section during operation of the fiber-based optical device across a defined temperature range (there inherently exists a temperature range wherein the unsupported section is prevented from breaking in a mechanically-weakened zone along the unsupported section during operation of the fiber-based optical device across a defined temperature range; otherwise the device would break rather than compensate for temperature changes, as disclosed in col. 7, lines 6-15).
Regarding claim 6: Chen disclosesThe packaging arrangement as defined in claim 1 (as applied above), wherein the substrate comprises aluminum (larger substrate is aluminum, see col. 6, line 62).
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.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hattori et al. (US Patent No. 5,208,883; hereinafter Hattori) in view of Koya et al. (US Patent No. 5,295,219; hereinafter Koya). Hattori discloses the packaging arrangement as defined in claim 11, as applied above, wherein the hybrid of at least two different materials comprises Invar (see col. 3, lines 20-23). Hattori fails to disclose that the substrate further comprises aluminum. However, Koya also related to packages including optical fiber coupling devices having support members (see title and abstract), teaches providing an outer substrate comprising aluminum (see col. 3, lines 15-22). In order to further reinforce the optical coupling device of Hattori, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the Hattori device such that it is covered in an outer substrate of aluminum, since it was previously taught by Koya.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hattori et al. (US Patent No. 5,208,883; hereinafter Hattori).
Hattori discloses the packaging arrangement as defined in claim 1 (as applied above). Hattori fails to disclose that the plurality of bonds are spaced apart by an amount such that each unsupported section of the fiber-based optical device exhibits a radius of curvature unable to support mode coupling or bend-induced loss at a low temperature extreme of the defined temperature range. As best understood by the Examiner, limiting the radius of curvature at the low temperature extreme of the defined temperature range, by appropriate placement of bonds, would be desirable in order to minimize bend induced loss and mode coupling, rather than bent to a radius of curvature that supports these undesirable properties. The spacing between the plurality of bonds is therefore a result effective variable. Before the effective filing date of the present invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to form the device wherein that the plurality of bonds are spaced apart by an amount such that each unsupported section of the fiber-based optical device exhibits a radius of curvature unable to support mode coupling or bend-induced loss at a low temperature extreme of the defined temperature range, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233), and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kirsten D Endresen whose telephone number is (703)756-1533. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday.
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 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.
/KIRSTEN D. ENDRESEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2874
/THOMAS A HOLLWEG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights