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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive. Applicant’s amendments and arguments to overcome the prior 35 USC 112 rejection is persuasive. However, applicant’s arguments related to the prior art’s lack of the individual rows including at least two fiber alignment holes is not persuasive. The prior art discloses the holes 128a-c that are associated with fiber ribbons (132a-d; abstract). These holes are aligned with associated opposing portions and are optically aligned. Therefore, this claim limitation is still anticipated be the prior art. However, the prior art lacks the misalignment tolerance that is added by amendment to include an angular misalignment of up to 1 degree. The prior rejection has been amended to include this limitation as the optimization of optical alignment would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. No specific structure is claimed as to how the structure or dimensions of the invention achieves the claimed tolerance values.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 9,134,494 to Wang et al.
Wang discloses in the abstract and figures 1-4, an upper body collimator comprising:
a first body (320) including more than two rows of fiber alignment holes (128a-c), wherein an individual row of the more than two rows of fiber alignment holes includes at least two fiber alignment holes (the abstract of Wang discloses that there are fibers which extend into the holes at 136a-d);
one or more alignment features configured to mate and/or demate with a second body external to the upper body collimator (column 9, lines 21-24 describe mechanical alignment features such as pins or clips); and
one or more optical structures including one or more: waveguides, lenses, mirrors, and/or light manipulating surfaces (column 10, line 11);
wherein the more than two rows of fiber alignment holes and the one or more optical structures are collectively configured to emit collimated light (450) across an interface with the second body, with a tolerance to lateral and/or angular misalignment.
As to claims 2-3, figures 2-4 depict optical alignment.
As to claim 4, the upper body is removable via connector (MT connectors disclosed in column 9, lines 21-24).
As to claim 5, a light redirecting member can be a mirror (description for figures 6A-6C).
As to claim 7, the light is configured to couple with other collimating elements (figures 2-4).
However, Wang fails to explicitly disclose a lateral and angular misalignment tolerance in the range claimed (20um and 1 degree, respectively). It is noted that the goal of Wang is to reduce and minimizer misalignment (column 8, lines 9-44).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to arrange the components in Wang to maximize alignment and minimize losses.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang.
Wang discloses the invention as claimed including 350micron diameter vias. Wang discloses that these diameters (D) and the pitch can be optimized so that ribbons of the fiber can be un-singulated to provide a connection (column 10, lines 33-53).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as a matter of design choice to optimize the size and pitch of the fiber openings to optimize the connection for packaging size and transmission of optical signals.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang.
Wang discloses the invention as claimed but does not disclose polarization independent light operating at a wavelength range spanning at least one of O- (1260nm-1360nm), C- (1530nm-1565nm) and L- (1565nm-1625nm) bands. It is noted that these bands are commonly known and used. Further, Wang discloses wavelength selective features such as gratings. Although Wang does not disclose the specific bands claimed, one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the wavelength selective features disclosed could be adapted to select the wavelength bands in the ranges claimed as a matter of design choice for the intended use.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Eric K Wong whose telephone number is (571)272-2363. The examiner can normally be reached M-Tu, Th-F 8A-6P.
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.
ERIC K. WONG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2874
/Eric Wong/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874