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 .
Response to Amendment
Upon further consideration of previously objected claim 9, the objection is withdrawn and a rejection is made in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0095039 ("Nekkanty"). Claim 9 is cancelled, claims 1-8, 10-21 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 1-6, 8, 10-12, and 14-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0314721 ("Hu") in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0095039 ("Nekkanty").
Regarding claim 1, Hu discloses a lens array (13, Fig. 4, 6, or 132, Fig. 7) configured to convey a plurality of electromagnetic signals between a plurality of fiber optic conduits of a fiber optic fixture (11/12, Figs. 4, 6-7) and a plurality of optical devices of a device under test (21/22, Fig. 5), the lens array comprising:
a single lens block (13, Fig. 4, 6, paragraph [0044]) that defines:
a fixture-attached block side (side attached to 121/123, Fig. 6), which is configured to face toward, and be operatively attached to, a fixture body of the fiber optic fixture (12, Figs. 4, 6-7); and
a lensed block side (side with lens 131, Fig. 6), which differs from the fixture-attached block side (Fig. 6); and a plurality of lenses defined on the lensed block side (see Fig. 4, paragraph [0044]).
Hu does not disclose that the lens block includes a lens block fiducial configured to be visible to an optical assembly of a probe system that includes the lens array.
However, Nekkanty discloses a lens block (106, Figs. 1-2) includes a lens block fiducial (114, Figs. 1-2) configured to be visible, wherein the lens block fiducial includes at least one of: a first lens block fiducial configured to be visible to the optical assembly from a first direction (Figs. 1-2, paragraph [0048]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include fiducials on the lens block as disclosed by Nekkanty in the device of Hu in order to precisely place the lens assembly in a desired position.
Regarding claim 2, Hu in view of Nekkanty discloses the lens array of claim 1, and Hu further discloses that the plurality of lenses is defined solely on the lensed block side (see Figs. 4, 6, paragraph [0044]).
Regarding claim 3, Hu in view of Nekkanty discloses the lens array of claim 1, Hu further discloses that a given lens of the plurality of lenses defines a corresponding signal path between the fixture-attached block side and the given lens (paragraph [0044]: “each of the first microlenses 131 corresponds to each of the corresponding optical fibers 12.”), and further wherein the corresponding signal path extends solely within a lens block material of the lens block between the fixture-attached block side and the given lens (see Figs. 4-6, paragraph [0044]).
Regarding claim 4, Hu in view of Nekkanty discloses the lens array of claim 1, Hu further discloses that each lens of the plurality of lenses defines a corresponding lens shape (see lens shape 131, Fig. 6, or Fig. 7), wherein the corresponding lens shape is at least substantially constant for each lens of the plurality of lenses (paragraphs [0044], [0047]).
Regarding claim 5, Hu in view of Nekkanty discloses the lens array of claim 1, and Hu further discloses that each lens of the plurality of lenses defines a corresponding lens shape (see Fig. 6). Although Hu does not explicitly disclose that the corresponding lens shape of at least one lens of the plurality of lenses differs from the corresponding lens shape of at least one other lens of the plurality of lenses, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to change the shape of the lens in order to ensure the lens accommodates the fiber size. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).
Regarding claim 6, Hu in view of Nekkanty discloses the lens array of claim 1, Hu further discloses that the lensed block side defines a lensed block side face (see lens side, Fig. 6), wherein at least one lens of the plurality of lenses projects from the lensed block side face by a corresponding lens projection distance (see projecting lens 131, Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 8, Hu in view of Nekkanty discloses the lens array of claim 1, Hu further discloses that a lens block material of the lens block is at least substantially transparent (optically transparent material, paragraph [0044]) at least one of:
to the plurality of electromagnetic signals (implied, in order to have a functioning device, paragraph [0044]); and
(ii) at an electromagnetic signal frequency of the plurality of electromagnetic signals (implied, in order to have a functioning device, paragraph [0044]).
Regarding claim 10, Hu in view of Nekkanty discloses the lens array of claim 1, Hu further discloses that the lens block (13, Fig. 4) defines a block alignment structure (14, Fig. 4) shaped to operatively engage with a corresponding DUT alignment structure (221, Fig. 6) of the DUT to facilitate optical alignment between the plurality of lenses of the lens array and the plurality of optical devices of the DUT (see Fig. 4-6, paragraphs, [0038], [0045]).
Regarding claim 11, Hu in view of Nekkanty discloses the lens array of claim 10, Hu further discloses that, when the block alignment structure (14, Figs. 4-6) is operatively engaged with the DUT alignment structure (221, Fig. 6), the block alignment structure (14, Fig. 6) and the DUT alignment structure (221, Fig. 6) precisely position the lens array and the DUT relative to one another in three orthogonal directions (see Figs. 5-6).
Regarding claim 12, Hu in view of Nekkanty discloses the lens array of claim 1, Hu further discloses that a lens block material (13, Fig. 4) of the lens block fully defines both the single lens block and the plurality of lenses (Figs. 4, 6, paragraph [0044]).
Regarding claim 14, Hu in view of Nekkanty discloses the lens array of claim 1, Hu further discloses that the fixture-attached block side and the lensed block side at least one of: (i) are on opposed sides of the lens block (see Figs. 4, 6); and (ii) face away from one another (see Figs. 4, 6).
Regarding claim 15, Hu in view of Nekkanty discloses the lens array of claim 1, Hu further discloses that the lens array (13, Fig. 4-6) is configured for surface coupling with the DUT (21/22, Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 16, Hu in view of Nekkanty discloses the lens array of claim 1, and Nekkanty further discloses that a corresponding signal path of each electromagnetic signal through the lens block is linear (see Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to arrange the lens block in a way that the signal passes through it linearly in order to minimize losses and use less optical components.
Regarding claim 17, Hu in view of Nekkanty discloses the lens array of claim 1, Hu further discloses that the lens array is configured for edge coupling with the DUT (see Figs. 5-6, edges are coupled).
Regarding claim 18, Hu in view of Nekkanty discloses the lens array of claim 1, Hu further discloses that a corresponding signal path of each electromagnetic signal through the lens block (13, Fig. 4) includes at least one reflection within the lens block (Hu discloses the same structure, therefore it similarly includes at least one reflection within the lens block).
Regarding claim 19, Hu in view of Nekkanty discloses the lens array of claim 1 (13, Fig. 4) and Hu further discloses a fiber optic fixture (11/12, Fig. 4), comprising:
a fixture body (11/12, Fig. 4) that defines a lens-receiving surface (121, Fig. 4);
a plurality of fiber optic conduits (12, Fig. 4) terminating at the lens-receiving surface (121, Fig. 4); and
the lens array of claim 1 (13, Fig. 4), wherein the fixture-attached block side of the lens block is operatively attached to the lens-receiving surface of the fixture body (see Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 20, Hu in view of Nekkanty discloses the fiber optic fixture of claim 19 (see Fig. 4) and Hu further discloses a probe system (100, Fig. 4), comprising:
a DUT support fixture configured to operatively support a device under test (implied, paragraph [0037]);
the fiber optic fixture of claim 19 (see Fig. 4); and
an electromagnetic signal generation and analysis assembly (implied and inherent in a probe system, paragraph [0006]) configured to at least one of provide at least a provided subset of the plurality of electromagnetic signals (L, Fig. 6, paragraph [0040]) to a corresponding providing subset of the plurality of fiber optic conduits (123/111, Fig. 6) and receive at least a received subset of the plurality of electromagnetic signals from a corresponding receiving subset of the plurality of fiber optic conduits (implied, paragraph [0006]).
Regarding claim 21, Hu in view of Nekkanty discloses a method of forming a fiber optic fixture of a probe system, and Hu further discloses the method comprising: 3D printing at least a region of the lens array of claim 1 (see Hu, paragraph [0013]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu in view of Nekkanty further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0103596 ("Tsunoda").
Regarding claim 7, Hu in view of Nekkanty discloses the lens array of claim 1, but does not disclose that the lensed block side defines a lensed block side face (see Figs. 4-6), but does not disclose that at least one lens of the plurality of lenses is recessed from the lensed block side face and into the lens block by a corresponding lens recess distance.
However, Tsunoda discloses a lens is recessed from the lensed block side face and into the lens block by a corresponding lens recess distance (see for example, lens 24a, Figs. 5-6).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the lens in a recessed position as disclosed by Tsunoda in the device of Hu in view of Nekkanty in order to protect it while aligning it against the device.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu in view of Nekkanty further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2005/0249459 ("Rosinski").
Regarding claim 13, Hu in view of Nekkanty discloses the lens array of claim 1, but does not disclose that a lens material, which differs from a lens block material of the lens block, defines the plurality of lenses.
However, Rosinski discloses a lens material (14, 15, Fig. 1), which differs from a lens block material of the lens block (17, Fig. 1, is a resin), defines the plurality of lenses (paragraph [0018], resin and glass, see claims 7, 10).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have different materials for the lens and the block as disclosed by Rosinski in the device of Hu in view of Nekkanty in order to manipulate the refractive indexes of the lenses.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONICA T. TABA whose telephone number is (571)272-1583. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 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, Georgia Epps can be reached at 571-272-2328. 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.
/MONICA T TABA/Examiner, Art Unit 2878
Prosecution Insights