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 Amendment
The amendments to claims 1, 8, 16, 17, 23, and 25 made on December 29th, 2025 have been fully considered and entered by the examiner.
The rejection to claim 16 under 35 USC 112 has been withdrawn in light of applicants’ amendments.
The remaining rejections are maintained as applicants’ arguments are found to be not persuasive, and are addressed by the examiner below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 29th, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states: “However, Applicant understands Wizner as disclosing the optical fibers 226 as being on side of the PCB 230 opposite the substrate 211. As such, Applicant does not understand Wizner as disclosing the optical fibers 226 as being on a same side of the PCB 230 as the substrate 211. Thus, Wizner does not disclose an electronic system including a board, a package substrate coupled to the board, and an optical fiber on a same side of the board and the package substrate, as is required by Applicant's claims. As such, with respect to amended independent claims 1, 17 and 23, Wizner fails to disclose each and every feature of Applicant's claims.”
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim requires that the fibers are “…on a same side of the board and the package substrate”. As shown in Figure 4 of Winzer, the examiner observes that the fibers 226 and the substrate 211 are both on the same side - the left side - of the board (PCB 230). Thus, the limitation is met by the prior art. This detail has been elucidated in the amended claim language of the rejections below.
The rejections to claims 1, 17, and 23 are maintained. Language directed to a ‘top’ or ‘bottom’ side of the board may be useful in distinguishing the instant invention over the prior art, but the claims as written do not overcome the rejection.
Specification Objection
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: inconsistent terminology. Paragraphs 26-28 refer to reference character 193 as a ‘socket’, but in paragraph 34 it is referred to as a ‘socketing architecture’. The figures (Figure 1A, 1B) depict reference character 193 in relation to an architectural component, but it is not apparent that the reference character 193 is in relation to both a ‘socket’ and a ‘socketing interconnect architecture’ such that those terms may be used interchangeably. Appropriate correction is required. For the purpose of examination, the examiner interprets any geometry permitting an object to fit into a hollow/hollowed region so that the package and board may be coupled to meet the definition of a ‘socket’ or ‘socketing interconnect architecture’.
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 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winzer et al. (US 20220159860 A1).
Regarding claim 1:
Winzer et al. discloses a board (Figure 4, printed circuit board 230 is a board, the instant application also discloses that “the board 190 may comprise a printed circuit board”);
A package substrate coupled to the board (Figure 4, substrate 211);
A PIC coupled to the package substrate (Figure 4, PIC 214 is coupled to the package substrate 211);
An optical lens on the PIC (Figure 167, in another embodiment, depicts lens array 16706 on the PIC 16704);
An optical connector on the board (Figure 4 depicts optical connector 213 & 223 on the board 230), wherein the optical connector passes through an opening through the package substrate (the optical connector 213 passes through the substrate 211, the optical 223 passes through the board 230).
And an optical fiber (optical fibers 226) coupled to the optical connector (223), the optical fiber on a same side of the board and the package substrate (Figure 4, fiber[s] 226 and substrate 211 are both on the left side of the board, hence the same side).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the invention of Winzer et al. with the additional teachings found therein, such that at least a lens is disposed on the PIC and there is an optical connector coupled with the package substrate. This could be accomplished using the devices and components disclosed in Winzer et al., with routine placement techniques known to art, and would predictably result in a stable optical connector which carries an optical signal with minimal loss due to the support provided by the board.
Regarding claim 14:
Winzer et al. discloses the electronic system of claim 1 wherein:
Winzer et al. discloses that the lens is a on a side of the PIC (Figure 16, lens array 16706 is on the PIC 16704).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to design the invention of claim 1 to contain a PIC with a lens on a side of the PIC. This could be accomplished using routine placement techniques known to the art and would predictably result in a lens which is coupled to the PIC and therefore capable of propagating a signal from or to it.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winzer et al. (US 20220159860 A1) in view of Yasunobu et al. (US 20150277071 A1)
Regarding claim 2:
Winzer et al. discloses the electronic system of claim 1, wherein:
Winzer et al. does not disclose that sidewalls of the opening through the package substrate are tapered or that the sidewalls of the optical connector are tapered. However, the use of tapering in connecting or coupled optoelectronic components is well known to the art as a useful technique for ensuring stable alignment and connection, reducing the need for adhesion or dynamic alignment components:
Yasunobu et al. discloses an optical module, wherein the optical connector (Figure 1, optical connector 103) has tapered sidewalls which allow it to couple and align with the engaging member 104 (Figure 1, Figure 2 shows another angle), which also has tapered side walls.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the optical connector of Winzer et al. as well as the package substrate that is passes through, using routine machining techniques known to the art. This would predictably impart the benefit of passive alignment, whereby additional (and costly) materials are not necessary to maintain a rigid and stable connection between the connector and the package substrate.
Claim(s) 3, 4, 7-9, 13, 15-18, 20, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winzer et al. (US 20220159860 A1) in view of Shiraishi et al. (US 20110108716 A1).
Regarding claim 3:
Winzer et al. discloses the electronic system of claim 1, but do not expressly disclose an interposer between the PIC and package substrate, instead, they disclose a ‘first slab’ 256 (Shown in Figure 5, a close up of the package substrate in Figure 4). However, the use of interposers for the purpose of coupling and structural stability is well known to the art.
Shiraishi et al. discloses an optoelectronic circuit board, wherein an interposer (Figure 12, interposer 20) lies between an optoelectric device (photoelectric conversion device 30, with lenses 73a attached) and the package substrate (paragraph 33, the interposer may have a ceramic or organic substrate).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the invention of claim 1 to replace the first slab of Winzer et al. with the interposer 20 as taught by Shiraishi et al. This change would be an exercise in routine judgment as interposer plays a role in providing structural support and setting alignment; thus, an interposer may be added between the two to ensure proper spacing and stability between the components as they couple with the connector. This would predictably result in a device which allows an optical connector to connect with a PIC directly, without modifying the function of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 4:
Winzer et al. in view of Shiraishi et al. discloses the electronic system of claim 3, wherein:
Winzer et al. teaches that the optical connector passes through a first opening through the substrate, and then a second opening through the ‘first slab’, which is replaced with an interposer as taught by Shiraishi et al., in the invention of claim 3.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the invention of claim 3 to have an optical connector which passes through a second opening through the interposer. One could pass the connector 213 of Winzer et al. through the package substrate and interposer as depicted by Figure 5 of Winzer et al. This would predictably result in a device which allows an optical connector to connect with a PIC directly as a result of adding an opening to the interposer, without modifying the function of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 7:
Winzer et al. discloses the electronic system of claim 1, wherein:
Winzer et al. does not disclose that the optical connector comprises a second lens and a mirror.
Shiraishi et al. discloses an optoelectronic circuit board, wherein an interposer (Figure 12, interposer 20) lies between an optoelectric device (photoelectric conversion device 30, with lenses 73a attached) and the package substrate (paragraph 33, the interposer may have a ceramic or organic substrate). This optical package then connects with the optical connector (the lenses 73 optically connect the package with the board and waveguides 13; Shiraishi et al. do not explicitly refer to this as an ‘optical connector’, but the assembly replaces optical connector 60, as seen in Figure 7, and accomplish the same function without altering the function of the claimed invention).
Additionally, one can see in figure 11 of Shiraishi et al. that the second lenses 73b lead to mirrors 14.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the optical connector of claim 1 under the teachings of Shiraishi et al. Using methods known to the art, one may modify the portion of the connector on the board to end with a lens, as in lens 73b of Shiraishi et al., and for the lens on the PIC of Winzer et al. to be the lens 73a of Shiraishi et al., wherein a single lens is used instead of two as shown. These lenses are coupled to a mirror 14 as seen in Figure 11, together forming an optical connector with a second lens and a mirror. This would predictably allow the device to have a lens-lens optical connection, which is advantageous over direct waveguide or fiber connections in that it does not experience fiber interface losses (reflections, alignment), has greater bandwidth, and is capable of more compact fitting as strain relief and bend radius do not need to be considered.
Regarding claim 8:
Winzer et al. in view of Shiraishi discloses the electronic system of claim 7, wherein:
In another embodiment, Shiraishi discloses that the optical waveguide of the optical connector may be an optical fiber (Paragraph 36, “the optical waveguide array 61 may be a fiber…”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the invention of claim 7 under the teachings of Shiraishi et al. to either have a connector that fully passes through the package substrate as in the embodiment of Figure 1 (connector 60 passes through the substrate before connecting with the fiber 61), or to simply replace the waveguide 13 with a fiber as disclosed for the alternative embodiment in figure 1. This could be accomplished using machining techniques known to the art, and would predictably result in a dual-lens connection that is coupled to a mirror and propagates the signal into a fiber, imparting the benefit of optically connecting in a dense configuration which does not require any fibers within the connector, and which operates with minimal loss.
Regarding claim 9:
Winzer et al. in view of Shiraishi discloses the electronic system of claim 8, wherein:
Shiraishi et al. discloses that the fiber extends to an edge of the board (Figure 10A, the waveguide 13 extends to an edge of the board).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to construct the fiber of claim 8 to extend to the edge of the board. This could be accomplished by exercise routine judgement over the length of the fiber used during manufacture, and would predictably result in a board which is capable of receiving and propagating signals well beyond the connector and package assembly.
Regarding claim 13:
Winzer et al. discloses the electronic system of claim 1.
Shiraishi et al. discloses an optoelectronic circuit board, wherein an interposer (Figure 12, interposer 20) lies between an optoelectric device (photoelectric conversion device 30, with lenses 73a attached) and the package substrate (paragraph 33, the interposer may have a ceramic or organic substrate). This optical package then connects with the optical connector (the lenses 73 optically connect the package with the board and waveguides 13; Shiraishi et al. do not explicitly refer to this as an ‘optical connector’, but the assembly replaces optical connector 60, as seen in Figure 7, and accomplish the same function without altering the function of the claimed invention).
Additionally, one can see in figure 11 of Shiraishi et al. that the second lenses 73a is on a surface of the optoelectronic component, facing the substrate.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the invention of claim 1 to include the lenses 73a taught in Shiraishi et al., such that they were disposed on the bottom face of the PIC and therefore facing the package substrate. This could be accomplished using routine placement techniques known to the art, and would better fit a configuration as taught in the earlier embodiments of Winzer et al., where the optical connector passes through the package substrate.
Regarding claim 15:
Winzer et al. discloses the electronic system of claim 1, but does not disclose that the optical connector comprises a second lens or an alignment feature.
Shiraishi et al. describe an optical connector (Figure 4, optical connector 60), wherein the optical connector, in another embodiment, contains a second lens (Figure 11, Lens 73), and alignment features (Paragraph 36, “the optical connector 60 may be passive aligned by inserting the pin into the hole”). The alignment feature is a well in the interposer attached to the optoelectric device, and a protrusion of the lenses 73 of the connect is what fits into and aligns with them. Thus, the alignment feature and second lens are also not co-located.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the invention of claim 1 to include the connector of Shiraishi et al instead of Winzer et al, and then to lean on the disclosure of another embodiment (Lens 73) to attach the lens to the end of the optical connector 60. This could be accomplished using components, machining, and alignment techniques known to the art, and would predictably result in an optical connector with a lens that enables lens-to-lens coupling, which is advantageous over fiber coupling in terms of bandwidth and low loss. With the benefit of the passive alignment features (the disclosed ‘hole’ in which the pin of the optical connector fits), this would lead to a device with minimal loss and time/cost-effective alignment protocols, without altering the function of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 16:
Winzer et al. discloses the electronic system of claim 15.
Winzer et al. does not expressly disclose an alignment feature in the embodiment of Figures 4 and 5. However, a hole, well, or protrusion would have been an obvious modification to one of ordinary skill in the art, as passive alignment components created through grooves, wells, and depressions are well known to the art.
Shiraishi et al. describe an optical connector (Figure 4, optical connector 60), wherein the optical connector, in another embodiment, is aligned into a hole of the interposer attached to the PIC (Figure 11, Lens 73), and thus contains an alignment feature (Paragraph 36, “the optical connector 60 may be passive aligned by inserting the pin into the hole”). The alignment feature is a well in the interposer attached to the optoelectric device, and a protrusion of the lenses 73 of the connect is what fits into and aligns with them.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the electronic system of claim 1 under the teachings of Shiraishi et al., such that the alignment feature of the interposer attached to the PIC is extended into the PIC. This change would provide a slight alignment benefit in that the protrusion from the connector would fit slighter further into the package substrate, interposer, and PIC above it, and thus would lead to better alignment and coupling between optical components, leading to less volume taken up while minimizing loss.
Regarding claim 17;
Winzer et al. discloses a printed circuit board (Figure 4, printed circuit board 230 is a board).
A package substrate coupled to the board (Figure 4, substrate 211);
Winzer et al. does not disclose a socket.
Shiraishi et al. discloses an optoelectronic circuit board, wherein an interposer (Figure 4, interposer 20) lies between an optoelectric device (photoelectric conversion device 30) and the package substrate (paragraph 33, the interposer may have a ceramic or organic substrate); this is an electronic package. Furthermore, it is connected to the board 10 via grooves 11, which are hollow openings where walls 20 fit into. As it is known to the art, the groove 11 is a socket, and will be interpreted as a socket for the purpose of examination.
An optical connector (Figure 4 depicts optical connector 213 & 223 on the board 230); and
An optical fiber (Figure 4, waveguide 61 may be a fiber or waveguide, as disclosed in paragraph 36) coupled to the optical connector, the optical fiber on a same side of the board and the package substrate (Figure 4, fiber[s] 226 and substrate 211 are both on the left side of the board, hence the same side).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to design a PCB comprising a PCB substrate, a socket, an optical connector, and an optical fiber. The combination of these materials is well known in the art and could be performed using combining and machining methods that are obvious to one of ordinary skill, and would predictably result in a PCB which has the core components for propagating and processing an optical signal.
Regarding claim 18:
Winzer et al. in view of Shiraishi discloses the electronic system of claim 17, wherein:
Shiraishi et al. discloses that the optical connector is within a footprint of the socket (Figure 10A, the “footprint” of the socket 11 encloses the connector, as viewed from the top-down).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to design the invention of claim 17 to dispose the optical connector within a footprint of the socket. This could be accomplished using ordinary machining of the grooves required for the socket, as well as routine placement techniques for the connector, and would predictably impart a benefit by insulating the connector from flux throughout the rest of the device.
Regarding claim 20:
Winzer et al. in view of Shiraishi discloses the electronic system of claim 17, wherein:
Winzer et al. does not disclose that the optical connector comprises a lens and a mirror.
Shiraishi et al. discloses an optoelectronic circuit board, wherein an interposer (Figure 12, interposer 20) lies between an optoelectric device (photoelectric conversion device 30, with lenses 73a attached) and the package substrate (paragraph 33, the interposer may have a ceramic or organic substrate). This optical package then connects with the optical connector (the lenses 73 optically connect the package with the board and waveguides 13; Shiraishi et al. do not explicitly refer to this as an ‘optical connector’, but the assembly replaces optical connector 60, as seen when compared with Figure 7, and accomplishes the same function without altering the function of the claimed invention).
Additionally, one can see in figure 11 of Shiraishi et al. that the second lenses 73b lead to mirrors 14, which lead to the outgoing waveguide, which may be a fiber (Paragraph 36, “the optical waveguide array 61 may be a fiber…”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the invention of claim 17 to further comprise a lens and a mirror, wherein the lens is optically coupled to the lens via the mirror. This is best shown in Figure 11 of Shiraishi et al., where a second lens 73 is upstream of the mirror 14 which is upstream of the waveguide, which may be a fiber. This disposition may be achieved using placement and machining techniques known to the art, and would predictably allow the direction of the optical coupling to be different from the propagation direction of the optical signal through the fiber, which permits great freedom and planarity in the optical connection. This reduces space, volume, cost, and time while maintaining high signal integrity.
Regarding claim 22
Winzer et al. in view of Shiraishi discloses the electronic system of claim 17, wherein:
Shiraishi et al. discloses that the fiber extends to an edge of the board (Figure 10A, the waveguide 13 extends to an edge of the board, and may be a fiber; Paragraph 36, “the optical waveguide array 61 may be a fiber…” the optical waveguide 61 is analogous to the waveguide 13, and there is no functional difference to the claimed invention regardless of which is used).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to construct the fiber of claim 17 to extend to the edge of the board. This could be accomplished by exercise routine judgement over the length of the fiber used during manufacture, and would predictably result in a board which is capable of receiving and propagating signals well beyond the connector and package assembly.
Claim(s) 6 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winzer et al. (US 20220159860 A1) in view of Shiraishi et al. (US 20110108716 A1), in further view of Epitaux et al. (US 20210194164 A1).
Regarding claim 6:
Winzer et al. in view of Shiraishi et al. discloses the electronic system of claim 3, wherein:
Neither reference expressly discloses that the interposer may be made from glass, though glass interposers are well known to the art.
Epitaux et al. teach an electronic device with an optical engine (Figure 15, optical engine 118) which is supported by an optical interposer (Figure 15, optical interposer 130) that may be made from glass (paragraph 110, “…the interposer 130 can be a glass interposer…”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the interposer in the device of claim 3 to be one composed of glass. This could be accomplished using silicon-based materials known to the art, and would predictably provide an interposing layer which is structurally sound, stable, and cost-effective.
Regarding claim 19:
Winzer et al. in view of Shiraishi discloses the electronic system of claim 17, wherein:
They do not disclose that there is a compliant pad under the optical connector.
Epitaux et al. teaches an electrical device (data communication system 20), wherein a compliant pad (Figure 6, compression plate 78 may be made of a compliant material, as described in paragraph 77) envelopes an electrical connector input (compliant circuits 68) from above and below.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use a compliant pad in under the connector of the device in claim 17. Compliant pad materials and usage benefits are known to the art, and thus the compliant pad could have been placed using methods and materials known to art. Doing so would predictably impart the benefit of providing a ‘soft’ layer which is resistant to shock and helps the connecting components maintain a stable connection in noisy environments.
This could be accomplished using routine machining techniques known to the art, and would predictably impart the benefit of a well-aligned and stably-coupled device with reduced loss during operation and quicker manufacturing, which is cost-effective for production. One could accomplish this without altering the function of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 5 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winzer et al. (US 20220159860 A1) in view of Shiraishi et al. (US 20110108716 A1), in further view of Yasunobu et al. (US 20150277071 A1)
Regarding claim 5:
Winzer et al. in view of Shiraishi et al. discloses the electronic system of claim 4, wherein:
Neither reference teaches that the sidewalls of the optical connector and the sidewalls of the opening through the interposer are tapered. However, the use of tapering in connecting or coupled optoelectronic components is well known to the art as a useful technique for ensuring stable alignment and connection, reducing the need for adhesion or dynamic alignment components.
Yasunobu et al. discloses an optical module, wherein the optical connector (Figure 1, optical connector 103) has tapered sidewalls which allow it to couple and align with the engaging member 104 (Figure 1, Figure 2 shows another angle), which also has tapered side walls.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the invention of claim 4 to have an optical connector with tapered sidewalls, and a tapered opening through the interposer, as taught in Yasunobu et al. This would predictably result in a device which has long term coupling stability and easy application. An exemplary modification of Figure 5 in Winzer et al. is shown below, and depicts the result at a high level. There is no significance to any discrepancies in color, the purpose of the example is simply to illustrate the change from flat, right-angled coupler sidewalls to tapered sidewalls.
PNG
media_image1.png
430
666
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 21:
Winzer et al. in view of Shiraishi et al. discloses the electronic system of claim 20.
They do not disclose that there is a housing around the lens and mirror, and that the housing has a tapered sidewall surface.
Yasunobu et al. discloses an optical connector (Figure 9, optical connector 103), further comprising a housing around a lens (902) and a mirror (901).
In another aspect of the invention, Yasunobu et al. discloses a means for using tapered sidewalls around the housing (Figure 5, top right). The housing has a tapered sidewall surface. Generally, the use of tapering in passive alignment is known to the art as an effective means for quickly aligning components into a stable configuration.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the invention of claim 20 to include a housing around the lens and mirror, modified to fit the structural setup of claim 20 by flipping the lens member to the face towards the incoming light beam, and then to flip the device as depicted in Figure 9 across the x-axis, so that it may be disposed on the board. Based on the teachings of Yasunobu et al., it would be beneficial to use tapered sidewalls on the housing as well as corresponding tapered walls in the PIC, so that the housing may take full advantage of its tapered walls to passively align with the PIC. A high-level overview of the kind of modification that could occur to the connector and the PIC is shown in the exemplary modification of Figure 5 of Winzer et al. above. This would predictably result in a device which couples a second lens to a PIC, maintaining a planar, compact design with high bandwidth and low loss, thanks to the stability and precision of tapered sidewalls for passive alignment.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winzer et al. (US 20220159860 A1) in view of Bakir et al. (US 7266267 B2).
Regarding claim 10:
Winzer et al. discloses the invention of claim 1, wherein:
Winzer et al. does not disclose that the package substrate couples to the board with a socketing interconnect architecture. However, socketing interconnects are well-established in the art for the purpose of quickly aligning distinct components for coupling or combination.
Bakir et al. teach fabrication methods for various optical and electrical interconnections. Included are socket interconnects (Figures 16A-17E show how the socketing interconnect is formed).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the invention of claim 1 to utilize a socketing interconnect architecture disposed on the board to aid the coupling of the package to the board. This could be accomplished using machining techniques known to the art, and would predictably impart the benefit of stable alignment of a passively attached connector and package, with high precision for loss reduction and quick/efficient application in a production setting.
Claim(s) 11 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winzer et al. (US 20220159860 A1) in view of Epitaux et al. (US 20210194164 A1).
Regarding claim 11;
Winzer et al. discloses the invention of claim 1, wherein:
Winzer et al. does not teach a compliant pad under the optical connector.
Epitaux et al. teaches an electrical device (data communication system 20), wherein a compliant pad (Figure 6, compression plate 78 may be made of a compliant material, as described in paragraph 77) envelopes an electrical connector input (compliant circuits 68) from above and below.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use a compliant pad in under the connector of the device in claim 1. Compliant pad materials and usage benefits are known to the art, and thus the compliant pad could have been placed using methods and materials known to art. Doing so would predictably impart the benefit of providing a ‘soft’ layer which is resistant to shock and helps the connecting components maintain a stable connection in noisy environments.
Regarding claim 12;
Winzer et al. in view of Epitaux et al. discloses the invention of claim 11, wherein:
Epitaux et al. further discloses that the compression plates 78 contain a plurality of springs 84, which bias the compliant circuits against the package substrate (paragraph 84 discloses this explicitly).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the compliant pads in the invention of claim 11 to be springs or contain springs, using methods and materials known to the art. This would predictably have the benefit of allowing the connector to connect and be biased towards a favorable position for signal propagation, while maintaining stability in the presence of vibration or a noisy environment.
Claim(s) 23-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winzer et al. (US 20220159860 A1) in view of Shiraishi et al. (US 20110108716 A1), in further view of Yasunobu et al. (US 20150277071 A1) and Epitaux et al. (US 20210194164 A1).
Regarding claim 23:
Winzer et al. discloses a board (Figure 4, printed circuit board 230 is a board, the instant application also discloses that “the board 190 may comprise a printed circuit board”);
A package substrate coupled to the board (Figure 4, substrate 211);
A PIC coupled to a package substrate (Figure 4, PIC 214 is coupled to the package substrate 211, and more specifically to a ‘first slab’ on the package substrate as seen in Figure 5);
An optical connector on the board (Optical connector 213/223 in on PCB 230), wherein:
The optical connector passes through a first opening through the package substrate (Figure 4 shows this explicitly), and a second opening in the first slab.
And an optical fiber (optical fibers 226) coupled to the optical connector (223), the optical fiber on a same side of the board and the package substrate (Figure 4, fiber[s] 226 and substrate 211 are both on the left side of the board, hence the same side).
Winzer does not disclose that the PIC is coupled to an interposer.
Winzer et al. does not disclose that an optical lens is on the PIC, in the embodiment of Figures 4 and 5.
Winzer et al. does not disclose that the optical connector passes through an interposer, however, using interposers for stability and confinement is well known in the art.
Shiraishi et al. discloses an interposer (Figure 12, interposer 20) coupled to a package substrate (paragraph 33, the interposer may have a ceramic or organic substrate). One may replace the ‘first slab’ of Winzer et al. with an interposer to achieve the same function for the invention; this would then result in a PIC coupled to an interposer.
Shiraishi et al. discloses a first lens on a photoelectric device 30, which is structurally in an analogous place to the PIC of Winzer et al.
Shiraishi et al. discloses an optical connector on the board (Figure 5, optical connector 60 connecting to waveguide 61, which may be a fiber as disclosed in paragraph 35), wherein the optical connector passes through a first opening through the package substrate (Figure 5 shows this explicitly through the package 1) and a second opening through the interposer (Figure 12, in an embodiment, the interposer 20 has an opening for the optical connection).
In an embodiment, Shiraishi et al. discloses an optical connector, wherein the optical connector is optically coupled with the optical lens on the photoelectric device 30 (Figure 12, this optical connector is instead a lens 73b on the board coupled and aligned with the lens 73a on the photoelectric device 30).
Shiraishi et al. does not teach that the interposer is made of glass, though glass is well known in the art as a material suited for structural components, insulation, and rigidity.
Epitaux et al. teach an electronic device with an optical engine (Figure 15, optical engine 118) which is supported by an optical interposer (Figure 15, optical interposer 130) that may be made from glass (paragraph 110, “…the interposer 130 can be a glass interposer…”)
None of the cited prior art discloses that the sidewalls of the second opening or optical connector are tapered. Generally, the use of tapering in passive alignment is known to the art as an effective means for quickly aligning components into a stable configuration.
Yasunobu et al. discloses an optical module, wherein the optical connector (Figure 1, optical connector 103) has tapered sidewalls which allow it to couple and align with the engaging member 104 (Figure 1, Figure 2 shows another angle), which also has tapered side walls.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to take the invention of Winzer et al., and to make the following modifications under various teachings in the prior art.
An interposer in place of the first slab, coupled to the package substrate as taught in Shiraishi et al.
This would predictably result in a layer which aids the structural stability of the device.
An optical lens on the PIC, motivated by the optical lens on the photoelectric device of Shiraishi et al.
This would predictably result in a lack of need for fiber coupling the devices, and would both speed up the coupling process and increase the bandwidth of the signal.
The optical connector of Shiraishi et al., as it passes through openings in the package substrate and interposer.
This would predictably result in a deeper coupling and stronger alignment than surface level or shallow couplings do.
The optical connector is coupled with the optical lens on the PIC, as motivated by Shiraishi et al.
This would predictably result in lens-to-lens coupling when making the connection, which promotes greater bandwidth and lower loss during signal propagation due to a lack of fiber medium and intrinsic (i.e. Fresnel) scattering.
Tapered sidewalls for the connector and interconnect opening, as motivated by Yasunobu et al.
This would greatly improve the passive alignment capabilities of the device. Yasunobu et al. teach the drawbacks of the conventional structure already disclosed, as shown in Figure 5. of Yasunobu et al., left column. The conventional structure is prone to deformations from mounting or long-term use that are circumvented by the tapered alignment scheme, among other issues.
An interposer made of glass, as taught in Epitaux et al.
Glass is a sturdier material with resistant thermal properties when compared to organic or polymer-based materials found in interposers as alternatives.
In sum, the amalgam of prior art teachings indicate that the device as claimed would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as they provide tangible, known benefits already employed in the art.
Regarding claim 24:
Winzer et al. in view of Shiraishi, Yasunobu, and Epitaux et al. teaches the optical device of claim 23, wherein:
Shiraishi et al. teaches a die coupled to a photoelectric device through a bridge on the interposer (Figure 12, the die 40 and PIC 30 are bridged via connections inscribed into the interposer).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the invention of claim 23 to include a bridge for coupling the die to the PIC on the interposer. This could have been accomplished using the teachings of Shiraishi et al., creating pathways in the interposer using machining techniques known to the art. This would predictably result in an opto-electric device which couples electronic processing with a photonic device, and renders the device function for use in optoelectronics without requiring additional components or space.
Regarding claim 25:
Winzer et al. in view of Shiraishi, Yasunobu, and Epitaux et al. teaches the optical device of claim 23, wherein:
Shiraishi et al. discloses an optoelectronic circuit board, wherein an interposer (Figure 12, interposer 20) lies between an optoelectric device (photoelectric conversion device 30, with lenses 73a attached) and the package substrate (paragraph 33, the interposer may have a ceramic or organic substrate). This optical package then connects with the optical connector (the lenses 73 optically connect the package with the board and waveguides 13; Shiraishi et al. do not explicitly refer to this as an ‘optical connector’, but the assembly replaces optical connector 60, as seen in Figure 7, and accomplish the same function without altering the function of the claimed invention).
Additionally, one can see in figure 11 of Shiraishi et al. that the second lenses 73b lead to mirrors 14.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the optical connector of claim 23 under the teachings of Shiraishi et al. Using methods known to the art, one may modify the portion of the connector on the board to end with a lens, as in lens 73b of Shiraishi et al., and for the lens on the PIC of Winzer et al. to be the lens 73a of Shiraishi et al., wherein a single lens is used instead of two as shown. These lenses are coupled to a mirror 14 as seen in Figure 11, together forming an optical connector with a second lens and a mirror. This would predictably allow the device to have a lens-lens optical connection, which is advantageous over direct waveguide or fiber connections in that it does not experience fiber interface losses (reflections, alignment), has greater bandwidth, and is capable of more compact fitting as strain relief and bend radius do not need to be considered.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 PREET B PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-2579. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu: 8 am - 6 pm PST.
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.
/PREET B PATEL/Examiner, Art Unit 2874
/THOMAS A HOLLWEG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights