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 .
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 4, 16, 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 4, “the at least a first reflector” and “the at least a second reflector” lacks proper antecedent basis.
Regarding claims 16 and 20, “the first top mechanical fixture”, “the first bottom mechanical fixture”, “the second top mechanical fixture” and “the second bottom mechanical fixture” lack proper antecedent basis.
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(s) 1, 11-13, 17, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim (U.S. PGPUB 2021/0109302) in view of Ahn et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2002/0003232).
Regarding claims 1, 11-13, 17, 18, Lim discloses (Fig. 4) a method and an apparatus for pluggable inter-chip optical coupling, wherein the apparatus comprises: a first sub-assembly, wherein the first sub-assembly comprises: at least a first photonic chip (406) in communication with an optical source ([0061[), wherein the at least a first photonic chip comprises one or more passive optical elements (waveguide) ; a first high tolerance grating coupler element (430) configured to interface with at least a second photonic chip (402); and a first set of one or more alignment features (410a, 410b); and a second sub-assembly, wherein the second sub-assembly comprises: the at least a second photonic chip, a second high tolerance grating coupler element (434) configured to interface with the at least a first photonic chip; and a second set of one or more alignment features (404a, 404b), wherein the second set of one or more alignment features are configured to engage the first sub-assembly at the first set of one or more alignment features, wherein attaching the first sub-assembly to the second sub-assembly using the first set of alignment features and the second set of alignment features aligns the first high tolerance grating coupler in optical communication with the second high tolerance grating coupler. Since the grooves or trenches of Lim are left open or deep or etched in silicon, as understood, they are oxide open trenches or deep trenches or through silicon trenches as claimed. Lim does not specifically disclose the at least a second photonic chip comprises a sensing region. Ahn et al. teach (Fig. 1) a photonic chip (110) having a sensing region (140). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing of the invention to provide a sensing region in the apparatus of Lim in view of Ahn et al. to reduce costs by implementing an optical network in the substrate as known and predictable.
Claim(s) 3, 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim in view of Ahn et al., further in view of Holzapfel et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2019/0017938).
Regarding claims 3, 4, Lim in view of Ahn et al. disclose the claimed invention as set forth above. Lim and Ahn et al. do not specifically disclose a first or a second reflector as claimed. Holzapfel et al. teach (Fig. 12, [0067]) providing a reflector (M) to recycle lost light back into a grating coupler. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing of the invention to provide such reflectors in the grating couplers of Lim in view of Ahn et al. and Holzapfel et al. to improve operation of the device as taught, known and predictable.
Claim(s) 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim in view of Ahn et al., further in view of Holzapfel et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2019/0017938).
Regarding claims 8-10, Lim in view of Ahn et al. disclose the claimed invention as set forth above. Lim and Ahn et al. do not specifically disclose the optical source being a distributed feedback laser, a vertical cavity laser or a vernier-tuned distributed Bragg reflector laser as claimed. However, such types of lasers are conventional and well known in the art. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing of the invention to provide such types of lasers in the device of Lim in view of Ahn et al. to reliably, cost-effectively and compactly generate light as known and predictable.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 5-7, 14, 15, 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THANH LUU whose telephone number is (571)272-2441. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5:30PM.
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.
/THANH LUU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2878
Prosecution Insights