DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1 through 20 originally filed 4 January 2022. By amendment received 23 January 2025; claims 1, 5, 8, and 16 are amended, claim 14 is cancelled, and claim 21 is amended. By amendment received 21 July 2025; claims 1, 16, and 21 are amended. By amendment received 14 January 2026; claims 1, 16, and 21 are amended. Claims 1 through 13 and 15 through 21 are addressed by this 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 have been fully considered; they are addressed below.
Applicant argues that the amendments to the claims overcome the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). This argument is persuasive and the corresponding rejections are withdrawn. However, in light of the present amendments, new rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are set forth below. As noted below, these new rejections may be overcome by amending all instances of the term "coplanar" to read "parallel" instead.
Applicant argues that the amendments to the claims define the claims over the previously cited art. This argument is persuasive and all rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 are withdrawn. However, upon further search and consideration, Edwards (US Pub. 2013/0001746) has been located which, in combination with the previously cited art, teaches the amended feature.
The above noted change in rejection renders all arguments relating to the structure of the capacitor of Galvano et al. (Galvano, US Pub. 2018/0278011) moot because Galvano is no longer cited as teaching the internal structure of the capacitor.
As such, all claims are addressed as follows:
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 1 through 13 and 15 through 21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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 1, this claim uses the term "coplanar" in several spots. The term "coplanar" is defined as "in the same plane". However, this claim refers to elements as "coplanar" where those elements cannot be in the same plane. Given the context of the claims and the underlying support set forth in the original description, it is apparent this claim uses the "coplanar" where the term "parallel" is intended. As such, this claim is 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. For the remainder of this action, this claim will be interpreted as using the term "parallel" in all instances that the term "coplanar" is used.
Regarding claim 16, this claim uses the term "coplanar" in several spots. The term "coplanar" is defined as "in the same plane". However, this claim refers to elements as "coplanar" where those elements cannot be in the same plane. Given the context of the claims and the underlying support set forth in the original description, it is apparent this claim uses the "coplanar" where the term "parallel" is intended. As such, this claim is 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. For the remainder of this action, this claim will be interpreted as using the term "parallel" in all instances that the term "coplanar" is used.
Regarding claim 21, this claim uses the term "coplanar" in several spots. The term "coplanar" is defined as "in the same plane". However, this claim refers to elements as "coplanar" where those elements cannot be in the same plane. Given the context of the claims and the underlying support set forth in the original description, it is apparent this claim uses the "coplanar" where the term "parallel" is intended. As such, this claim is 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. For the remainder of this action, this claim will be interpreted as using the term "parallel" in all instances that the term "coplanar" is used.
Regarding claims 2 through 13, 15, and 17 through 20, each of these claims depend properly from claims 1, 16, and 21 and inherit all limitations thereof. As such, these claims are also indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. For the remainder of this action, these claims will also be interpreted as noted above regarding respective parent claims 1, 16, and 21.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 2, 12, 13, 15, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Munding (US Pub. 2015/0228878), in view of Lai et al. (Lai, US Pub. 2014/0269804), and further in view of Edwards (US Pub. 2013/0001746).
Regarding claim 1, Munding discloses, "A substrate" (p. [0057] and Fig. 2A, pt. 202). "[The substrate] having a capacitor arranged inside the substrate" (p. [0057] and Fig. 2A, pts. 6 and 202). "At least one optical element disposed on the substrate" (p. [0057] and Fig. 2A, pts. 3 and 202). "An interconnection disposed on the substrate" (p. [0057] and Fig. 2A, pts. 11 and 202). "The capacitor being electrically connected to the optical element through the interconnection" (p. [0057] and Fig. 2A, pts. 3, 6, and 11). "Dielectric material between the first and second internal electrode layers" (p. [0036]). Munding does not explicitly disclose, "At least one conductive pillar having a height from the substrate that is larger than the optical element." "[The at least one conductive pillar] is electrically connected to the interconnection." "An electrode disposed on a surface of the at least one conductive pillar opposite to a surface coupled to the interconnection." "The electrode being constructed to electrically connect to the circuit board." Lai discloses, "At least one conductive pillar having a height from the substrate that is larger than the optical element" (p. [0036] and Fig. 1D, pts. 28 and 46A). "[The at least one conductive pillar] is electrically connected to the interconnection" (p. [0036] and Figs. 1C and 1D, pts. 24A and 46A). "An electrode disposed on a surface of the at least one conductive pillar opposite to a surface coupled to the interconnection" (p. [0036] and Fig. 1D, pts. 46A and 56A). "The electrode being constructed to electrically connect to the circuit board" (p. [0036] and Fig. 1D, pts. 46A and 56A). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Munding with the teachings of Lai. In view of the teachings of Munding regarding an optoelectronic device in which elements are provided atop a carrier, the alternate inclusion of metal posts for electrical connection to the carrier that is surrounded by a molding compound as taught by Lai would enhance the teachings of Munding by allowing encapsulation of the optoelectronic device while also providing electrical connections through that encapsulation.
The combination of Munding and Lai does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the capacitor comprises a first internal electrode layer and a second internal electrode layer that each form a plurality of alternative projecting and recessed shapes that are complementary to each other." "Wherein the first internal electrode layer has a top planar surface that faces the at least one optical element." "[The top planar surface] is coplanar with a surface of the optical element facing the substrate." "Wherein the first electrode layer interfaces with a metal layer that is connected to the interconnection by at least one via conductor." "Wherein the second internal electrode layer has a bottom planar surface that is opposite to and coplanar with the top planar surface of the first internal electrode layer." "The plurality of alternative projecting and recessed shapes extend between the top planar surface of the first internal electrode layer and the bottom planar surface of the second internal electrode layer in a thickness direction of the substrate." Edwards discloses, "Wherein the capacitor comprises a first internal electrode layer and a second internal electrode layer that each form a plurality of alternative projecting and recessed shapes that are complementary to each other" (p. [0033], [0044], and Fig. 5A, pts. 216, 239, 241, and 242). "Wherein the first internal electrode layer has a top planar surface that faces the at least one optical element" (p. [0044], Fig. 5A, pt. 216, where this surface of the capacitor faces the laser when the capacitor is used for capacitor 6 of Munding). "[The top planar surface] is coplanar with a surface of the optical element facing the substrate" (p. [0044], Fig. 5A, pt. 216, where this surface of the capacitor is parallel to the mounting surface of the laser 3 of Munding when the capacitor is used for capacitor 6 of Munding). "Wherein the first electrode layer interfaces with a metal layer that is connected to the interconnection by at least one via conductor" (p. [0044] and Fig. 5A, pts. 216 and 561, where metal layer 561 is arranged to connect to via 27 and interconnection 11 of Munding when the capacitor is used for capacitor 6 of Munding). "Wherein the second internal electrode layer has a bottom planar surface that is opposite to and coplanar with the top planar surface of the first internal electrode layer" (p. [0044] and Fig. 5A, pts. 216 and 242). "The plurality of alternative projecting and recessed shapes extend between the top planar surface of the first internal electrode layer and the bottom planar surface of the second internal electrode layer in a thickness direction of the substrate" (p. [0033], [0044], and Fig. 5A, pts. 216, 239, 241, and 242). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Munding and Lai with the teachings of Edwards. In view of the teachings of Munding regarding an optoelectronic device having a carrier that includes a capacitor, the particular construction of the capacitor as taught by Edwards would enhance the teachings of Munding and Lai by providing a suitable capacitor configuration.
Regarding claim 2, Munding does not explicitly disclose, "A molding member disposed on a surface of the substrate to cover the optical element and the at least one conductive pillar." Lai discloses, "A molding member disposed on a surface of the substrate to cover the optical element and the at least one conductive pillar" (p. [0038] and Fig. 1D, pts. 28, 46A, and 48). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Munding with the teachings of Lai for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, The combination of Munding, Lai, and Edwards does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the molding member comprises a plurality of layers." "An in-mold interconnection electrically connected to the at least one conductive pillar is disposed between a pair of layers of the plurality of layers." The examiner takes Official Notice of the fact that it was known in the art to fabricate an interconnect within a molding material in multiple stages that involves multiple layers of molding and in which the interconnects are formed to include lateral extensions between the molding layers so as to allow the interconnect to surface in an area other than directly over the initial location and/or to create additional internal connections. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the molding layer in multiple layers and provide an in-mold connection to the conductive pillars between the molding layers, since this type of connection would allow the conductive pillar to surface in an area other than directly over the initial location and/or to create additional internal connections.
Regarding claim 13, Munding discloses, "The capacitor is a semiconductor capacitor included in the substrate" (p. [0059] and Fig. 2A, pts. 6, 9, and 202). Munding does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the substrate is a semiconductor substrate." Lai discloses, "Wherein the substrate is a semiconductor substrate" (p. [0010] and Fig. 1D, pt. 20). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Munding with the teachings of Lai for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 15, Munding discloses, "Wherein… the optical element… [is] directly disposed on the interconnection" (p. [0057] and Fig. 2A, pts. 3 and 11). Munding does not explicitly disclose, "The at least one conductive pillar [is] directly disposed on the interconnection." Lai discloses, "The at least one conductive pillar [is] directly disposed on the interconnection" (p. [0036] and Figs. 1C and 1D, pts. 24A and 46A). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Munding with the teachings of Lai for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 21, Munding discloses, "A substrate" (p. [0057] and Fig. 2A, pt. 202). "A capacitor arranged inside the substrate" (p. [0057] and Fig. 2A, pts. 6 and 202). "At least one optical element disposed on the substrate" (p. [0057] and Fig. 2A, pts. 3 and 202). "An interconnection disposed on the substrate" (p. [0057] and Fig. 2A, pts. 11 and 202). "The capacitor being electrically connected to the optical element through the interconnection" (p. [0057] and Fig. 2A, pts. 3, 6, and 11). "Dielectric material interposed between the first plurality of alternating projecting and recessed shapes and the second plurality of alternating projecting and recessed shapes" (p. [0036]). Munding does not explicitly disclose, "At least one conductive pillar having a height from the substrate that is larger than the optical element." "[The at least one conductive pillar] is electrically connected to the interconnection." "An electrode disposed on a surface of the at least one conductive pillar opposite to a surface coupled to the interconnection." "The electrode being constructed to electrically connect to the circuit board." Lai discloses, "At least one conductive pillar having a height from the substrate that is larger than the optical element" (p. [0036] and Fig. 1D, pts. 28 and 46A). "[The at least one conductive pillar] is electrically connected to the interconnection" (p. [0036] and Figs. 1C and 1D, pts. 24A and 46A). "An electrode disposed on a surface of the at least one conductive pillar opposite to a surface coupled to the interconnection" (p. [0036] and Fig. 1D, pts. 46A and 56A). "The electrode being constructed to electrically connect to the circuit board" (p. [0036] and Fig. 1D, pts. 46A and 56A). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Munding with the teachings of Lai for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
The combination of Munding and Lai does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the capacitor comprises a first plurality of alternating projecting and recessed shapes in a first low resistance layer." "A second plurality of alternating projecting and recessed shapes in a second low resistance layer." "The second plurality of alternative projecting and recessed shapes being complementary shapes to the first plurality of alternative projecting and recessed shapes." "Wherein the first low resistance has a top planar surface that faces the at least one optical element." "[The top planar surface] is coplanar with a surface of the at least one optical element facing the substrate." "Wherein the first low resistance layer interfaces with a metal layer that is connected to the interconnection by at least one via conductor." "Wherein the second low resistance layer has a bottom planar surface that is opposite to and coplanar with the top planar surface of the first low resistance layer." "The first and second pluralities of alternative projecting and recessed shapes extend between the top planar surface of the first low resistance layer and the bottom planar surface of the second low resistance layer in a thickness direction of the substrate." Edwards discloses, "Wherein the capacitor comprises a first plurality of alternating projecting and recessed shapes in a first low resistance layer" (p. [0033], [0044], and Fig. 5A, pts. 216 and 239). "A second plurality of alternating projecting and recessed shapes in a second low resistance layer" (p. [0033], [0044], and Fig. 5A, pts. 241 and 242). "The second plurality of alternative projecting and recessed shapes being complementary shapes to the first plurality of alternative projecting and recessed shapes" (p. [0033], [0044], and Fig. 5A, pts. 216, 239, 241, and 242). "Wherein the first low resistance has a top planar surface that faces the at least one optical element" (p. [0044], Fig. 5A, pt. 216, where this surface of the capacitor faces the laser when the capacitor is used for capacitor 6 of Munding). "[The top planar surface] is coplanar with a surface of the at least one optical element facing the substrate" (p. [0044], Fig. 5A, pt. 216, where this surface of the capacitor is parallel to the mounting surface of the laser 3 of Munding when the capacitor is used for capacitor 6 of Munding). "Wherein the first low resistance layer interfaces with a metal layer that is connected to the interconnection by at least one via conductor" (p. [0044] and Fig. 5A, pts. 216 and 561, where metal layer 561 is arranged to connect to via 27 and interconnection 11 of Munding when the capacitor is used for capacitor 6 of Munding). "Wherein the second low resistance layer has a bottom planar surface that is opposite to and coplanar with the top planar surface of the first low resistance layer" (p. [0044] and Fig. 5A, pts. 216 and 242). "The first and second pluralities of alternative projecting and recessed shapes extend between the top planar surface of the first low resistance layer and the bottom planar surface of the second low resistance layer in a thickness direction of the substrate" (p. [0033], [0044], and Fig. 5A, pts. 216, 239, 241, and 242). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Munding and Lai with the teachings of Edwards for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
Claims 3 through 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Munding, in view of Lai, in view of Edwards, and further in view of Galvano et al. (Galvano, US Pub. 2018/0278011).
Regarding claim 3, The combination of Munding, Lai, and Edwards does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the molding member is configured through which a wavelength of light emitted or received by the optical element passes at least on an optical path of the light." Galvano discloses, "Wherein the molding member is configured through which a wavelength of light emitted or received by the optical element passes at least on an optical path of the light" (p. [0036]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Munding, Lai, and Edwards with the teachings of Galvano. In view of the teachings of Munding regarding an optoelectronic device having a carrier that includes a capacitor, the alternate inclusion of a transparent resin through which light propagates as well as the alternate inclusion of driving elements within the optoelectronic package as taught by Galvano would enhance the teachings of Munding, Lai, and Edwards by allowing light to be emitted without need for a special optical feature directly on the emission surface as well as by allowing the package to perform some basic conditioning of the input signals to facilitate operation of the laser device.
Regarding claim 4, The combination of Munding, Lai, and Edwards does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the molding member is transparent to a wavelength of light emitted or received by the optical element." Galvano discloses, "Wherein the molding member is transparent to a wavelength of light emitted or received by the optical element" (p. [0036]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Munding, Lai, and Edwards with the teachings of Galvano for the reasons provided above regarding claim 3.
Regarding claim 5, The combination of Munding, Lai, and Edwards does not explicitly disclose, "At least one of: a switching element disposed on the substrate and configured to control a power feed to the optical element; and a control element disposed on the substrate and configured to control light emission by the optical element." Galvano discloses, "At least one of: a switching element disposed on the substrate and configured to control a power feed to the optical element; and a control element disposed on the substrate and configured to control light emission by the optical element" (p. [0032] and Fig. 5, pts. 4, 20, and 40). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Munding, Lai, and Edwards with the teachings of Galvano for the reasons provided above regarding claim 3.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Munding, in view of Lai, in view of Edwards, and further in view of Tatsuno et al. (Tatsuno, US Pub. 2003/0128726).
Regarding claim 6, The combination of Munding, Lai, and Edwards does not explicitly disclose, "An optical component disposed on the substrate and configured to change an optical path of light emitted or received by the optical element." Tatsuno discloses, "An optical component disposed on the substrate and configured to change an optical path of light emitted or received by the optical element" (p. [0049] and Fig. 3, pts. 100 and 300). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Munding, Lai, and Edwards with the teachings of Tatsuno. In view of the teachings of Munding regarding an optoelectronic device in which elements are provided atop a carrier and the teachings of Lai regarding a laser device on a carrier and covered by a sealing resin, the alternate inclusion of a redirecting element for deflecting the output light as taught by Tatsuno would enhance the teachings of Munding, Lai, and Edwards by allowing for use of edge emission lasers for vertical emission in the optoelectronic device.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Munding, in view of Lai, in view of Edwards, and further in view of Baldwin et al. (Baldwin, US Patent 5,761,229).
Regarding claim 7, The combination of Munding, Lai, and Edwards does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the at least one conductive pillar is directly electrically connected through a wire to the optical element." Baldwin discloses, "Wherein the at least one conductive pillar is directly electrically connected through a wire to the optical element" (col. 8, lines 20-22 and Fig. 2A, pts. 101, 125, and 126). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Munding, Lai, and Edwards with the teachings of Baldwin. In view of the teachings of Munding regarding an optoelectronic device in which elements are provided atop a carrier and the teachings of Lai regarding the inclusion of metal posts for connecting to the internal laser device, the alternate inclusion of a wire that directly connects the laser device to the metal post as taught by Baldwin would enhance the teachings of Munding, Lai, and Edwards by allowing an alternate form of direct connection between these features.
Regarding claim 8, The combination of Munding, Lai, and Edwards does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the at least one conductive pillar is directly electrically connected to the optical element." Baldwin discloses, "Wherein the at least one conductive pillar is directly electrically connected to the optical element" (col. 8, lines 20-22 and Fig. 2A, pts. 101, 125, and 126). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Munding, Lai, and Edwards with the teachings of Baldwin for the reasons provided above regarding claim 7.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Munding, in view of Lai, in view of Edwards, and further in view of Babakhani et al. (Babakhani, US Pub. 2015/0285998).
Regarding claim 9, The combination of Munding, Lai, and Edwards does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the at least one conductive pillar includes a portion different in cross-sectional shape in a surface in parallel to a surface of the substrate." Babakhani discloses, "Wherein the at least one conductive pillar includes a portion different in cross-sectional shape in a surface in parallel to a surface of the substrate" (p. [0057] and Fig. 1, pts. 102 and 123). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Munding, Lai, and Edwards with the teachings of Babakhani. In view of the teachings of Munding regarding an optoelectronic device in which elements are provided atop a carrier and the teachings of Lai regarding the inclusion of metal posts for connecting to the internal laser device, the alternate formation of the metal posts to extend through the carrier and the alternate inclusion of metal extensions within the molding as taught by Babakhani would enhance the teachings of Munding, Lai, and Edwards by allowing for connections to elements on the opposite side of the carrier and by allowing the interconnect to surface in an area other than directly over the initial location and/or to create additional internal connections.
Regarding claim 10, The combination of Munding, Lai, and Edwards does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the at least one conductive pillar is partially disposed in a recess or a through hole extending in the substrate." Babakhani discloses, "Wherein the at least one conductive pillar is partially disposed in a recess or a through hole extending in the substrate" (p. [0057] and Fig. 1, pts. 102 and 123). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Munding, Lai, and Edwards with the teachings of Babakhani for the reasons provided above regarding claim 9.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Munding, in view of Lai, in view of Edwards, and further in view of Schunk et al. (Schunk, US Pub. 2014/0097536).
Regarding claim 11, The combination of Munding, Lai, and Edwards does not explicitly disclose, "An electrode formed in the part of the substrate is electrically connected to the optical element through an internal interconnection disposed within the substrate." Schunk discloses, "An electrode formed in the part of the substrate is electrically connected to the optical element through an internal interconnection disposed within the substrate" (p. [0029] and Fig. 3, pts. 110, 121, 122, 123, 124, and 127). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Munding, Lai, and Edwards with the teachings of Schunk. In view of the teachings of Munding regarding an optoelectronic device in which elements are provided atop a carrier and the teachings of Lai regarding the inclusion of metal posts for connecting to the internal laser device, the alternate inclusion of internal connections through a carrier between a device and a metal post as taught by Schunk would enhance the teachings of Munding, Lai, and Edwards by allowing an alternate form of connection between these features.
The combination of Munding, Lai, Edwards, and Schunk does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein a part of the substrate extends to a same height as the at least one conductive pillar." The examiner takes Official Notice of the fact that it was known in the art to provide a carrier for an optoelectronic device that includes sidewalls surrounding the laser device to support a cover or otherwise define the uppermost portion of the carrier package. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to extend a portion of the substrate to the level of the metal pillar, so as to allow the substrate to define the upper surface of the package.
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Munding, in view of Lai, in view of Edwards, and further in view of Steegmuller et al. (Steegmuller, US Pub. 2009/0213881).
Regarding claim 16, Munding discloses, "Forming an interconnection on a substrate" (p. [0057] and Fig. 2A, pts. 11 and 202). "A plurality of capacitors being arranged on or in inside the substrate" (p. [0057] and Fig. 2A, pts. 6 and 202). "Disposing a plurality of optical elements at prescribed positions on the substrate" (p. [0057] and Fig. 2A, pts. 3 and 202). "Electrically connecting the plurality of optical elements to the plurality of capacitors, respectively, through the interconnection" (p. [0057] and Fig. 2A, pts. 3, 6, and 11). "Dielectric material between the first and second internal electrode layers" (p. [0036]). Munding does not explicitly disclose, "Forming at least one conductive pillar that has a height from the substrate that is larger than the plurality of optical elements." "[The at least one conductive pillar] is electrically connected to the interconnection." "Forming an electrode on a surface of the at least one conductive pillar opposite to a surface connected to the interconnection." "[The] electrode configured to electrically connect to the circuit board." Lai discloses, "Forming at least one conductive pillar that has a height from the substrate that is larger than the plurality of optical elements" (p. [0036] and Fig. 1D, pts. 28 and 46A). "[The at least one conductive pillar] is electrically connected to the interconnection" (p. [0036] and Figs. 1C and 1D, pts. 24A and 46A). "Forming an electrode on a surface of the at least one conductive pillar opposite to a surface connected to the interconnection" (p. [0036] and Fig. 1D, pts. 46A and 56A). "[The] electrode configured to electrically connect to the circuit board" (p. [0036] and Fig. 1D, pts. 46A and 56A). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Munding with the teachings of Lai for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
The combination of Munding and Lai does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the plurality of capacitors each comprise a first internal electrode layer and a second internal electrode layer that each form a plurality of alternative projecting and recessed shapes that are complementary to each other." "Wherein the first internal electrode layer has a top planar surface that faces the at least one optical element." "[The top planar surface] is coplanar with a surface of the optical element facing the substrate." "Wherein the first electrode layer interfaces with a metal layer that is connected to the interconnection by at least one via conductor." "Wherein the second internal electrode layer has a bottom planar surface that is opposite to and coplanar with the top planar surface of the first internal electrode layer." "The plurality of alternative projecting and recessed shapes extend between the top planar surface of the first internal electrode layer and the bottom planar surface of the second internal electrode layer in a thickness direction of the substrate." Edwards discloses, "Wherein the plurality of capacitors each comprise a first internal electrode layer and a second internal electrode layer that each form a plurality of alternative projecting and recessed shapes that are complementary to each other" (p. [0033], [0044], and Fig. 5A, pts. 216, 239, 241, and 242). "Wherein the first internal electrode layer has a top planar surface that faces the at least one optical element" (p. [0044], Fig. 5A, pt. 216, where this surface of the capacitor faces the laser when the capacitor is used for capacitor 6 of Munding). "[The top planar surface] is coplanar with a surface of the optical element facing the substrate" (p. [0044], Fig. 5A, pt. 216, where this surface of the capacitor is parallel to the mounting surface of the laser 3 of Munding when the capacitor is used for capacitor 6 of Munding). "Wherein the first electrode layer interfaces with a metal layer that is connected to the interconnection by at least one via conductor" (p. [0044] and Fig. 5A, pts. 216 and 561, where metal layer 561 is arranged to connect to via 27 and interconnection 11 of Munding when the capacitor is used for capacitor 6 of Munding). "Wherein the second internal electrode layer has a bottom planar surface that is opposite to and coplanar with the top planar surface of the first internal electrode layer" (p. [0044] and Fig. 5A, pts. 216 and 242). "The plurality of alternative projecting and recessed shapes extend between the top planar surface of the first internal electrode layer and the bottom planar surface of the second internal electrode layer in a thickness direction of the substrate" (p. [0033], [0044], and Fig. 5A, pts. 216, 239, 241, and 242). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Munding and Lai with the teachings of Edwards for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
The combination of Munding, Lai, and Edwards does not explicitly disclose, "Dicing the substrate such that each diced substrate includes one of the plurality of optical elements." Steegmuller discloses, "Dicing the substrate such that each diced substrate includes one of the plurality of optical elements" (p. [0108] and Fig. 5, pts. 14 and 50). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Munding, Lai, and Edwards with the teachings of Steegmuller. In view of the teachings of Munding regarding an optoelectronic device in which elements are provided atop a carrier, the additional technique of simultaneously forming multiple carriers as a single unit that is separated as taught by Steegmuller would enhance the teachings of Munding, Lai, and Edwards by allowing the elements to be formed in large quantities.
Regarding claim 17, Munding does not explicitly disclose, "Forming a molding member on a surface of the substrate to cover the optical element and the at least one conductive pillar." Lai discloses, "Forming a molding member on a surface of the substrate to cover the optical element and the at least one conductive pillar" (p. [0038] and Fig. 1D, pts. 28, 46A, and 48). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Munding with the teachings of Lai for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Munding, in view of Lai, in view of Edwards, in view of Steegmuller, and further in view of Galvano.
Regarding claim 18, The combination of Munding, Lai, Edwards, and Steegmuller does not explicitly disclose, "Forming a switching element on the substrate that is configured to control a power feed to the optical element." "Forming a control element on the substrate that is configured to control light emission by the optical element." Galvano discloses, "Forming a switching element on the substrate that is configured to control a power feed to the optical element" (p. [0032] and Fig. 5, pts. 4, 20, and 40). "Forming a control element on the substrate that is configured to control light emission by the optical element" (p. [0032] and Fig. 5, pts. 4, 20, and 40). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Munding, Lai, Edwards, and Steegmuller with the teachings of Galvano. In view of the teachings of Munding regarding an optoelectronic device having a carrier that includes a capacitor, the alternate inclusion of a transparent resin through which light propagates as well as the alternate inclusion of driving elements within the optoelectronic package as taught by Galvano would enhance the teachings of Munding, Lai, Edwards, and Steegmuller by allowing light to be emitted without need for a special optical feature directly on the emission surface as well as by allowing the package to perform some basic conditioning of the input signals to facilitate operation of the laser device.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Munding, in view of Lai, in view of Edwards, in view of Steegmuller, and further in view of Babakhani.
Regarding claim 19, The combination of Munding, Lai, Edwards, and Steegmuller does not explicitly disclose, "Forming the at least one conductive pillar to be partially disposed in a recess or a through hole extending in the substrate." Babakhani discloses, "Forming the at least one conductive pillar to be partially disposed in a recess or a through hole extending in the substrate" (p. [0057] and Fig. 1, pts. 102 and 123). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Munding, Lai, Edwards, and Steegmuller with the teachings of Babakhani. In view of the teachings of Munding regarding an optoelectronic device in which elements are provided atop a carrier and the teachings of Lai regarding the inclusion of metal posts for connecting to the internal laser device, the alternate formation of the metal posts to extend through the carrier and the alternate inclusion of metal extensions within the molding as taught by Babakhani would enhance the teachings of Munding, Lai, Edwards, and Steegmuller by allowing for connections to elements on the opposite side of the carrier and by allowing the interconnect to surface in an area other than directly over the initial location and/or to create additional internal connections.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Munding, in view of Lai, in view of Edwards, in view of Steegmuller, and further in view of Tatsuno.
Regarding claim 20, The combination of Munding, Lai, Edwards, and Steegmuller does not explicitly disclose, "Forming an optical component on the substrate that is configured to change an optical path of light emitted or received by the optical element." Tatsuno discloses, "Forming an optical component on the substrate that is configured to change an optical path of light emitted or received by the optical element" (p. [0049] and Fig. 3, pts. 100 and 300). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Munding, Lai, Edwards, and Steegmuller with the teachings of Tatsuno. In view of the teachings of Munding regarding an optoelectronic device in which elements are provided atop a carrier and the teachings of Lai regarding a laser device on a carrier, the alternate inclusion of a transparent resin through which light propagates and a redirecting element for deflecting the output light as taught by Tatsuno would enhance the teachings of Munding, Lai, Edwards, and Steegmuller by allowing for use of edge emission lasers for vertical emission in the optoelectronic device.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cousin (US Patent 8,928,121) is cited for teaching details regarding a vertical capacitor similar to the capacitor disclosed in Galvano.
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 Sean P Hagan whose telephone number is (571)270-1242. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 8:30AM-5:00PM.
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, MinSun Harvey can be reached at 571-272-1835. 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.
/SEAN P HAGAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2828