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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/23/2026 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 9 and 23-25 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
In the response to the restriction/election received 01/21/2025, applicant elected Species I. Species I is directed to figure 3A. Claim 9 recites “…a first photonics die and a second photonics die in the core… and a die coupled to the package substrate, wherein the die has an optical transceiver portion, and wherein the optical transceiver portion is optically coupled to the optical waveguide…”. Claim 23 recites “…a first photonics die and a second photonics die in the glass core… and a photonics transceiver coupled to the package substrate…”. Figure 3A includes a total of 3 dies. Only one die in figure 3A is not in the core and that die does not directly interface with an optical component and thus cannot be the die with an optical transceiver portion or include a photonics transceiver. The other two dies are in the core and must be the first photonics die and second photonics die. Thus, neither of the above combinations of claim limitations read on the elected species.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 9 and 23-25 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Joint Inventors
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendment filed 06/22/2026 has been considered and entered.
The objection to the drawings set forth in the office action mailed 06/22/2026 is withdrawn in view of the applicant’s amendments.
Response to Arguments
The applicant’s arguments filed 06/22/2026 have been fully considered but are moot in view of modified grounds for rejection. The limitations of amended claim 1 are now disclosed by Islam (US 20210225824 A1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Islam (US 20210225824 A1).
With regards to claim 1, Islam discloses a package substrate, comprising:
a core (Fig6b/Core [as indicated below]);
a first photonics die and a second photonics die in the core, wherein the core does not extend over a top surface of the first photonics die and the second photonics die (Fig6b; First and second semiconductor dies 108);
PNG
media_image1.png
301
695
media_image1.png
Greyscale
an optical waveguide embedded in the core, wherein the optical waveguide is optically coupled to the first photonics die and extends to an edge of the core (Fig6b; Optical waveguide 304); and
electrical vias extending through an entirety of the core from an uppermost surface of the core to a bottommost surface of the core, the electrical vias between and laterally spaced apart from the first photonics die and the second photonics die along a same horizontal axis (Fig6b/Electrical vias 112a).
With regards to claim 4, Islam discloses the package substrate of claim 1, further comprising: buildup layers over a top surface and a bottom surface of the core (Figs6b/Buildup layers 106 and 300a).
With regards to claim 5, Islam discloses the package substrate of claim 1, wherein the optical waveguide runs substantially parallel to a top surface of the core along an entire length of the optical waveguide (Fig6b).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Islam (US 20210225824 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Inagaki (US 9263784 B2).
With regards to claim 2, Islam discloses the package substrate of claim 1, but does not specifically teach the electrical vias as having an hourglass shaped cross-section. However, the practice of selecting an hourglass shape for the cross-section of an electrical via is well known in the art, as exemplified by Inagaki.
Islam discloses electrical vias extending through an entirety of the core from an uppermost surface of the core to a bottommost surface of the core. Inagaki teaches electrical vias having an hourglass cross-section (Inagaki/Fig3B/Vias 31 [Conductive through holes]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the vias in the package taught by Islam such that the vias had an hourglass shaped cross-section as suggested by Inagaki since doing so would reduce the likelihood of defects (such as voids) forming within the vias during fabrication.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Islam (US 20210225824 A1) as applied to claim 1 above in view of Leising (US 20080044127 A1).
With regards to claim 3, Islam discloses the package substrate of claim 1, but is silent regarding the optical waveguide having a circular or elliptical cross-section. However, the practice of selecting a circular or elliptical cross-section for a waveguide exists in the art as exemplified by Leising.
Islam discloses a package substrate with an optical waveguide embedded a core. Leising teaches a circular or elliptical cross-section for a waveguide (Leising/Paragraph 13/Lines 20-23). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a circular or elliptical cross-section for the waveguide of Islam as suggested by Leising since doing so would facilitate compatibility with transverse modes.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Islam (US 20210225824 A1).
With regards to claim 8, Islam discloses the package substrate of claim 1. Islam does not explicitly state that a refractive index of the optical waveguide is higher than a refractive index of the core. However, configuring a waveguide to have a higher refractive index than a layer of material immediately surrounding the waveguide is considered standard practice since doing so creates the refractive index difference responsible for containing light within the waveguide.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16, 18, and 21-22 are allowed.
With regards to claim 16, the prior art of record fails to disclose or reasonably suggest a package substrate, comprising: a glass core; a first photonics die and a second photonics die in the glass core, wherein the glass core does not extend over a top surface of the first photonics die and the second photonics die; a plurality of optical waveguides embedded in the glass core, wherein the plurality of optical waveguides comprise glass with a different crystal structure than the glass core, and wherein one or more of the plurality of optical waveguides extends to an edge of the core; and electrical vias extending through an entirety of the glass core from an uppermost surface of the glass core to a bottommost surface of the glass core, the electrical vias between and laterally spaced apart from the first photonics die and the second photonics die along a same horizontal axis. The closest prior art was relied upon in the rejection set forth above.
Claims 18 and 21-22 inherit the allowability of claim 16 on which they depend.
Claims 6-7 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.
With regards to claim 6, the prior art of record fails to disclose or reasonably suggest the package substrate of claim 1, wherein the optical waveguide is the same material as the core, and wherein a crystal structure of the optical waveguide is different than a crystal structure of the core in addition to the accompanying features of the independent claim and any intervening claims. The closest prior art was relied upon in the rejection set forth above.
Claim 7 inherits the allowability of claim 6 on which it depends.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Marc E Manheim whose telephone number is (703)756-1873. The examiner can normally be reached 6:30am - 5pm E.T., Monday - Tuesday and Thursday - Friday.
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 A 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.
/MARC E MANHEIM/Examiner, Art Unit 2874
/THOMAS A HOLLWEG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights