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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Throughout the specification, Applicant refers to “pneumatic” and cholesteric liquid crystals. This appears to be a typo and “pneumatic” should be changed to “nematic”.
Appropriate correction is required.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 1-20 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: The term “etchings” is unclear. Does an etching refer to a layer that has been etched? Does it refer to a hole in a layer, or a gap in a material or boundary between two materials? The specification does not define “etchings”. For the purpose of examination, an etching is considered to be any structure in a layer that could have been the result of an etching process, such as a gap in a material or a boundary between two materials.
Also regarding claim 1: Claim 1 does not provide structural relationships between the recited layers, making the structure of the claimed device unclear. In what order are these layers distributed? For the purpose of examination, the various claimed layers are interpreted as being in any order.
Also regarding claim 1: “wherein the one or more liquid crystal layers are positioned between the one or more conductive electrode layers” is unclear because the apparatus is claimed to have a minimum of one conductive electrode layer. If there is only one conductive electrode layer, how can the one or more liquid crystal layers be positioned “between” it? For the purpose of examination, Examiner is interpreting that the claim requires at least two conductive electrode layers.
Regarding claims 2 and 13: Since the claims use the word “may”, it is unclear whether the limitation that follows is required. For the purpose of examination, “may extend” is interpreted as “extends”.
Regarding claim 5: Claim 5 is unclear because it does not define any structural relationship between the apparatus and either of the fiber optic or the photonic integrated circuit. How does “a fiber optic is aligned with a photonic integrated circuit” relate to the structure of the apparatus? Based on the disclosure, it is understood that the fiber optic is aligned with a photonic integrated circuit via the apparatus. For the purpose of examination, the claim is interpreted accordingly.
Regarding claim 6: Claim 6 recites “The apparatus of claim 5, further comprising a fiber optic core aligned with a waveguide, wherein the fiber optic core is aligned with the waveguide based on the alignment of the apparatus and the photonic integrated circuit.” This is confusing because it appears to require that the apparatus includes a fiber optic core and a waveguide, so it is unclear how their alignment is dependent on the alignment of the apparatus with an external component, i.e. the photonic integrated circuit. From the specification, it appears that both the fiber optic core and the waveguide are external to the apparatus associated with the fiber optic and the photonic integrated circuit. Therefore, the apparatus does not further comprise these elements, as presently claimed. For the purpose of examination, the fiber optic core and the waveguide are interpreted as components external to the apparatus.
Regarding claim 11: Claim 11 recites “obtaining one or more transparent layers associated with a wire assembly”. It is unclear whether the wire assembly is also required to be obtained as part of performing the method because it does not make clear how the wire assembly is associated with the one or more transparent layers. The claim further recites “the one or more transparent layers of the wire assembly” and “the one or more etchings of the wire assembly”. These limitations lack proper antecedent basis because the claim fails to establish that the previously defined one or more transparent layers and the previously defined one or more etchings are “of the wire assembly”. Are these the same elements or are they different? For the purpose of examination, “obtaining one or more transparent layers associated with a wire assembly” is interpreted as “obtaining a wire assembly including one or more transparent layers”. This establishes that the transparent layers are “of the wire assembly”, providing proper antecedent basis for “the one or more transparent layers of the wire assembly”. However, the claim still fails to establish that “the one or more etchings” are “of the wire assembly”, so for the purpose of examination “the one or more etchings of the wire assembly” is interpreted as “the one or more etchings” recited in the step “attaching one or more etchings”.
Also regarding claim 11: The limitation “attaching one or more etchings with the one or more transparent layers of the wire assembly” is unclear for several reasons. First, as with claim 1, it is unclear what structure corresponds to “etchings”. Is it negative space? Is it a patterned layer? Further, how are the one or more etchings being attached? Is the claim referring to a transfer process, or is it actually referring to an etching process? Based on this, does the method require etching to be performed, or simply the attachment of patterned layers? Finally, do the etchings include the one or more transparent layers of the wire assembly? Or does applicant mean “attaching one or more etchings to the one or more transparent layers of the wire assembly”?
Also regarding claim 11: The final question of the previous point applies to all of the limitations in the claim which have the “attaching… with” format, (i.e. “attaching one or more electrically conductive material layers with the one or more etchings of the wire assembly; attaching one or more conductive electrode layers with the one or more etchings of the wire assembly; and attaching one or more liquid crystal layers with the one or more conductive electrode layers”). For the purpose of examination, they are interpreted as meaning “attaching… to” rather than “attaching… with”.
Regarding claim 15: The word “may” makes it unclear whether the limitation that follows is required. For the purpose of examination, “may create” is interpreted as “create”.
Regarding claim 20: “etching a first layer to the first transparent layer”, “etching a second layer to the second transparent layer”, and “etching a third layer to the third transparent layer” are unclear. Does “etching… to” mean that the etching is performed through a first layer until the first transparent layer is exposed? If so, the claim needs to make clear where the first layer is in relation to the first transparent layer. The same questions apply to the second layer/second transparent layer, and the third layer/third transparent layer. Alternatively, does “etching a first layer to the first transparent layer” mean “etching a first portion of the first transparent layer” or something similar?
Also regarding claim 20: “attaching a liquid crystal layer” is unclear. What is the liquid crystal layer being attached to?
Also regarding claim 20: “replacing a top temporary planar substrate with a fourth transparent layer” is unclear because this is the first time that the top temporary planar substrate is recited, so the claim should first make clear that one is present for at least part of the method before it is replaced. Otherwise, it is unclear whether this top temporary planar substrate is ever required to be attached to the device.
Also regarding claim 20: “ performing a dual damascene etch; and attaching a third metal layer to the dual damascene etch” is unclear due to inconsistent usage of “dual damascene etch”. “performing a dual damascene etch” refers to an etching process. “attaching a third metal layer to the dual damascene etch” appears to refer to the dual damascene etch as a structure resulting from the process.
Regarding claims 2-10 and 12-19: Dependent claims 2-10 and 10-19 inherently contain all of the deficiencies of any base and/or intervening claims from which they depend.
The scope of claims 11-19 are unclear as discussed above. As a result, a meaningful formulation of art rejections cannot be done at this time. See MPEP 2173.06 II, 2nd paragraph:
… where there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. … a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims.
Therefore, claims 11-19 have not been further considered with respect to prior art. This is not an indication of allowable subject matter.
Note: The following rejections are based upon the claims as best understood by Examiner.
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 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gu et al. (US Patent No. 6,832,028; hereinafter Gu).
Regarding claim 1: Gu disclosesAn apparatus comprising: one or more transparent layers (Fig. 6, glass substrates 76); one or more etchings (the gap between electrodes 102 and 104 shown in Figs. 5-6 is considered to meet the structural requirements of an etching, as best understood by the examiner) associated with one or more transparent layers; one or more electrically conductive material layers (Figs. 5-6, films 94; see col. 7, line 55 to col. 8, line 3) associated with the one or more etchings; one or more conductive electrode layers (Figs. 5-6, electrodes 102 and 104 and electrode film 90; see col. 7, lines 55-63) associated with the one or more etchings; and one or more liquid crystal layers (Figs. 5-6, liquid crystal layer 78) associated with the one or more conductive electrode layers, wherein the one or more liquid crystal layers are positioned between the one or more conductive electrode layers (see Fig. 6, the liquid crystal layer 78 is positioned between the electrode film 90 and the surface with electrodes 102 and 104).
Regarding claim 8: Gu disclosesThe apparatus of claim 1 (as applied above), wherein the one or more liquid crystal layers comprises one or more liquid crystal molecules (Fig. 6, molecules 150).
Regarding claim 9: Gu disclosesThe apparatus of claim 8 (as applied above), wherein the one or more liquid crystal molecules are adjusted based on a potential difference across the one or more liquid crystal layers, wherein the potential difference is determined based on an association between the one or more electrically conductive layers and the one or more conductive electrode layers (see col. 9, lines 28-end).
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 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshimura et al. (US 2012/0081645; hereinafter Yoshimura).
Yoshimura discloses
A method comprising: attaching a first transparent layer (Fig. 1B, inter-level insulating film IL1 made of silicon oxide film) to a planarized temporary substrate (the substrate 1 and ISO layer together; see Fig. 1B and paragraph 0030; the substrate is considered to fall within the BRI of “temporary substrate” because the claim does not require the temporary substrate to be replaced or removed, and the substrate could theoretically be replaced or removed); etching a first layer to the first transparent layer (see paragraph 0032 and Fig. 1B); attaching a first metal layer to the first layer (see paragraph 0032, PL1); attaching a second transparent layer on top of the first transparent layer and the first metal layer (Fig. 1B, IL2, see paragraph 0032); etching a second layer to the second transparent layer (see paragraph 0032 and Fig. 1B); attaching a second metal layer to the second layer (M1, see paragraph 0032);attaching a third transparent layer on top of the second transparent layer and the second metal layer (Fig. 5A, IL4); etching a third layer to the third transparent layer (see paragraph 0051); attaching a conductive electrode layer to the third layer (Fig. 1B, reflective electrodes attached to the plugs of the third layer PL2); attaching a liquid crystal layer (Fig. 8A, liquid crystal layer 32); creating a portion of a wire assembly (Fig. 8A, common electrode 35 is considered be a portion of a wire assembly), wherein the liquid crystal layer is positioned between one or more conductive electrode layers (Fig. 8A, liquid crystal layer 32 is positioned between common electrode 35 and the reflection electrodes RE); performing a dual damascene etch (Fig. 1B and paragraph 0032; dual damascene etch is performed in IL3); and attaching a third metal layer to the dual damascene etch (Fig. 1B, M2, see paragraph 0032).
Yoshimura further discloses providing a top planar substrate which is also a fourth transparent layer on top of the other layers (Fig. 8A, substrate 33). Yoshimura fails to disclose “replacing a top temporary planar substrate with a fourth transparent layer”. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the top temporary planar substrate with another, considered to be a fourth transparent layer, if the top planar substrate were to become damaged or broken during the manufacturing process, in order to fix the device.
Claims 2, 5-7, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gu et al. (US Patent No. 6,832,028; hereinafter Gu) in view of Meade et al. (US 2013/0202246; hereinafter Meade).
Regarding claim 2: Gu discloses the apparatus of claim 1, as applied above. Gu fails to disclose that the one or more electrically conductive material layers extend through a diameter of a fiber optic, connecting a photonic integrated circuit to the apparatus. However, Meade, also related to an adaptive coupler using liquid crystals to steer a light beam (see title and abstract), teaches that the one or more electrically conductive material layers extends through a diameter of a fiber optic and that the electrically conductive material layers connect a photonic integrated circuit to the apparatus (see dotted lines of optical fiber 110 in Fig. 3A, as well as LCPG 200; as shown in Figs. 2B-C, the electrically conductive material layers span the LCPG 200, which as shown in Fig. 3A spans the diameter of a fiber optic; additionally, the electrically conductive material layers steer the light beam, optically connecting the photonic integrated circuit and the apparatus). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the Gu device to connect an optical fiber to a photonic integrated circuit in order to enable transmission of signals between optical fibers and photonic integrated circuits with high efficiency, based on the teachings of Meade. In making the modification, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to form the device wherein the electrically conductive material layers extend through a diameter of a fiber optic and connect a photonic integrated circuit to the apparatus based on the teachings of Meade, in minimize loss between the fiber optic and the photonic integrated circuit.
Regarding claim 5: Gu teaches the apparatus of claim 1, as applied above. Gu fails to teach that a fiber optic is aligned with a photonic integrated circuit. However, Meade, also related to an adaptive coupler using liquid crystals to steer a light beam (see title and abstract), teaches a fiber optic is aligned with a photonic integrated circuit (see dotted lines of optical fiber 110 in Fig. 3A, as well as PIC 120). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the Gu device to connect an optical fiber to a photonic integrated circuit in order to enable transmission of signals between optical fibers and photonic integrated circuits with high efficiency, based on the teachings of Meade.
Regarding claim 6: Modified Gu teaches the apparatus of claim 5, as applied above, further comprising a fiber optic core (as shown in Fig. 1A, single-mode fiber 110 includes a fiber optic core) aligned with a waveguide (Fig. 3A, waveguide 170 is aligned with the entire fiber optic, including the core), wherein the fiber optic core is aligned with the waveguide based on the alignment of the apparatus and the photonic integrated circuit (Fig. 3A shows this).
Regarding claim 7: Gu discloses the apparatus of claim 1, as applied above. Gu fails to disclose that the apparatus spans a mode field diameter associated with a fiber optic core. However, Meade, also related to an adaptive coupler using liquid crystals to steer a light beam (see title and abstract), teaches a fiber optic is aligned with a photonic integrated circuit (see dotted lines of optical fiber 110 in Fig. 3A, as well as PIC 120). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the Gu device to connect an optical fiber to a photonic integrated circuit in order to enable transmission of signals between optical fibers and photonic integrated circuits with high efficiency, based on the teachings of Meade. In making the modification, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the device wherein the apparatus spans a mode field diameter associated with the fiber optic core, in order to effectively couple the light from the fiber optic core, since it has been held that when 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).
Regarding claim 10: Gu discloses the apparatus of claim 9, as applied above, wherein the potential difference across the one or more liquid crystal layers adjusts the liquid crystal molecules (see col. 9, lines 28-end). Gu fails to teach that the adjustment is to direct light to a waveguide associated with a photonic integrated circuit. However, Meade, also related to an adaptive coupler using liquid crystals to steer a light beam (see title and abstract), teaches a fiber optic is aligned with a waveguide associated with a photonic integrated circuit (see dotted lines of optical fiber 110 in Fig. 3A, as well as PIC 120 and waveguide 170). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the Gu device to connect an optical fiber to a waveguide associated with a photonic integrated circuit in order to enable transmission of signals between optical fibers and photonic integrated circuits with high efficiency, based on the teachings of Meade.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gu et al. (US Patent No. 6,832,028; hereinafter Gu) in view of Kim et al. (US 2025/0004219; hereinafter Kim).
Regarding claim 3: Gu discloses the apparatus of claim 1, as applied above. Gu fails to teach that the apparatus is positioned on a terminal end of a fiber and placed within a groove of a photonic integrated circuit. Kim teaches an apparatus for coupling light between a fiber and a PIC, wherein the apparatus (FAU connector), including beam shaping elements (Fig. 4, lens 204), is positioned on a terminal end of a fiber and placed within a groove of a photonic integrated circuit (see Fig. 4). This arrangement provides reliable and efficient alignment between the apparatus and the photonic integrated circuit. In order to use the optical coupler of Gu to provide adaptable coupling between an optical fiber and a photonic integrated circuit, allowing efficient signal transmission between these two components, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to place the apparatus in the groove of a photonic integrated circuit, as taught by Kim, in order to provide efficient and reliable coupling utilizing passive and active alignment.
Regarding claim 4: Modified Gu teaches the apparatus of claim 3, as applied above. Gu further discloses one or more interconnection sites (Fig. 5, contacts 84). Gu fails to teach that the apparatus is configured to communicate with the photonic integrated circuit via one or more interconnection sites. However, this is considered to be an intended use of the Gu apparatus. It has been held that “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does” (Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc. 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990)); that a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim (Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)); and that if a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the preamble, then it meets the claim (In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997)). See MPEP § 2111.02, II and MPEP § 2114, II. The modified Gu apparatus is incorporated with the photonic integrated circuit and necessarily includes circuitry to drive the electrical signals. Therefore, the modified Gu apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim.
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