NON-FINAL REJECTION
1. This is a non-final rejection of claims 1-40 in U.S. Appl No. 19/202,586 filed March 20, 2023 entitled “OPTICAL COUPLING.”
Priority
2. The priority stated in the CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS in the amendment to the specification is acknowledged.
Effective Filing Date
3. Examiners find the effective filing date of claims 1-40 is October 8, 2015 because these claims are supported by figure 1 of Appl. No. 14/878,591 (“the ‘591 Application) filed October 8, 2015 (see Examiner Annotated figure 1 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
417
893
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. Claims 18-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Specifically, the limitation “receive a 2nd substantially collimated optical beam and focus the 2nd substantially collimated optical beam; and direct the 2nd substantially collimated optical beam toward the semiconductor” is not described in the specification because the focused, and not the collimated, optical beam is directed toward the semiconductor.
5. Claims 10-17, 26-32, and 33-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
As to claims 10-17, the limitation “an optical focusing element configured to be disposed on the PIC substrate, the optical focusing element further configured to: facilitate expansion of an optical beam associated with an optical waveguide; substantially collimate the optical beam” is indefinite because it is unclear whether the “optical focusing element” comprises the flat tilting mirror (#160), which “facilitate[s] expansion of an optical beam associated with an optical waveguide” and the first curved mirror (#140), which “substantially collimate[s] the optical beam” or alternatively, whether the “optical focusing element” comprises only the first curved mirror (#140).
As to claims 26-32, the limitation “partially away from a plane of the transceiver component” is indefinite because the “plane of the transceiver” can be any one of the x, y, and z directions.
As to claims 33-40, the limitation “partially away from a plane of an optical transceiver component” is indefinite because the “plane of an optical transceiver” can be any one of the x, y, and z directions.
Double Patenting
6. Claims 1-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,804,334. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are directed to the same embodiment, i.e., figure 1 of the ‘334 Patent.
7. Claims 1-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,564,374. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are directed to the same embodiment, i.e., figure 1 of the ‘334 Patent.
8. Claims 1-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,546,958. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are directed to the same embodiment, i.e., figure 1 of the ‘334 Patent.
9. Claims 1-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,560,770. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are directed to the same embodiment, i.e., figure 1 of the ‘334 Patent.
10. Claims 1-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,554,078. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are directed to the same embodiment, i.e., figure 1 of the ‘334 Patent.
11. Claims 1-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,321,021. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are directed to the same embodiment, i.e., figure 1 of the ‘334 Patent.
12. Claims 1-40 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable the claims of copending Application No. 18/889,680 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are directed to the same embodiment, i.e., figure 1 of the ‘334 Patent.
13. Claims 1-40 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable the claims of copending Application No. 18/815,962 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are directed to the same embodiment, i.e., figure 1 of the ‘334 Patent.
Allowable Subject Matter
14. If the double patenting rejections and §112 rejections are overcome, then claims 1-9 and 10-17 would be in condition for allowance.
As to claims 1-9, the prior art does not disclose or make obvious “the 1st optical focusing element is configured to be offset from the second optical focusing element in two dimensions” in combination with the other limitations of the claims.
As to claims 10-17, the prior art does not disclose or make obvious “the optical focusing element is configured to be offset from the second optical focusing element in two dimensions” in combination with the other limitations of the claims.
Conclusion
15. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEANDRA M HUGHES whose telephone number is (571)272-6982. The examiner can normally be reached Generally M-Th 8AM-6PM.
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, Hetul Patel can be reached at 571-272-4184. 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.
Signed:
/DEANDRA M HUGHES/Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3992
Conferees:
/CHRISTINA Y. LEUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3991
/H.B.P/
Hetul PatelSupervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3992
Prosecution Insights