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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant elected without traverse claims directed to an optical device and an embodiment of Figs 2-3 in the reply filed on 02/20/2026.
New claim 39 discloses a limitation “an inter-diffused intermediate material at an interface between the solder layer and the spacer” This limitation is not disclosed in the description of the embodiment of Figs 2-3.
Accordingly, claim 39 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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.
Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
The claim discloses a limitation “the thickness of the spacer”, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation, since claim 1 on which it depends does not disclose this limitation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-10, 36-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Masumoto et al. (2010/0314745) found in IDS, hereinafter ‘745.
Regarding claim 1, Figs 3-4 of ‘745 disclose a device comprising:
1. “a base [36 (PCB ceramic substrate 38)] with a first coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE); and
an opto-mechanical component [30 (copper pillar 34, semiconductor die 32)] with a second CTE,
wherein a bottom surface of the opto-mechanical component [30 (bottom of 34)] is bonded to a top surface of the base [36 (top of 38)] via a solder layer [44], and
wherein a spacer [42,40] is disposed within the solder layer [44] to attach the bottom surface of the opto-mechanical component [30 (bottom of 34)] to the top surface of the base [36 (top of 38)].”
The limitation “optical device” has been considered, but not given a patentable weight since it only appears in the preamble. Coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) is an inherent characteristic of every material.
Regarding claims 2-4, 6-10, 36-38, Figs 3-4 of ‘745 further disclose:
2. “wherein the first CTE and the second CTE differ by greater than a threshold amount.” PCB ceramic substrate and copper pillar will inherently have different CTEs, “threshold amount” is not defined by the claim and can be considered to be any value.
3. “wherein the opto-mechanical component [30] includes at least one of: a fiber mount, a carrier, a prism, a lens, a waveguide device [copper pillar 34, semiconductor die 32].”
4. “wherein the top surface of the base [top of 38] and the bottom surface of the opto-mechanical component [bottom of pillar 34, bottom of die 32] are substantially parallel.” See Fig 4
6. “wherein a spacing between the base [38] and the opto-mechanical component [34] is based on a thickness of the spacer [42,40].” See Fig 4.
7. “wherein the spacer [42,40] includes at least one of: gold, nickel, aluminum, or dielectric [gold].”
8. “wherein the spacer [42,40] is independent of the base [38] and the opto-mechanical component [34].” See Fig 3.
9. “wherein the spacer [42,40] is a pillar structure attached to or formed from a portion of the base [38] or the opto-mechanical component.” See Fig 3.
10. “wherein a plurality of discrete spacer sections [42,40], of the spacer, form a plurality of attachment points between the base [38] and the opto-mechanical component [30,34].” See Fig 4
36. “wherein the solder layer [44] is associated with less than a threshold thickness.” The value of “threshold thickness” is not specified by the claim and can be any value.
37. “wherein a thickness of the solder layer [44] corresponds to the thickness of the spacer [42,40].” See Fig 4.
38. “wherein the base [38] is disposed against a first surface [bottom] of the spacer [42,40], and
wherein the opto-mechanical component [34] is disposed against a second surface [top] of the spacer [42,40].”
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 26-29, 31-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masumoto et al. (2010/0314745), hereinafter ‘745, and further in view of Miyokawa et al. (2019/0372303) found in IDS, hereinafter ‘303.
Regarding claims 1, 3, 26-28, Fig 1 of ‘303 discloses a CoS 18 with an emitter 20 and a fiber mount 28 attached to the base 16. ‘303 does not disclose the how the elements 18, 28 are attached to the base 16. However, this is well known in the art as evidenced by ‘745, which discloses that using a spacer and a solder to attach two elements to each other is advantageous for the purpose of avoiding short circuiting between contacts and providing effective solder volume control, see Figs 2 and 4 of ‘745.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teachings of ‘745 into the device of ‘303 by using the spacer and solder attachment style to attach a CoS with an emitter and fiber mount to the base, since the combination would yield the predictable result of avoiding electrical short circuit between the contacts.
Thus, the claimed invention would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because “all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR, 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395.
Combination of ‘303 and ‘745 discloses:
1. “a base [16] with a first coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE); and
an opto-mechanical component [28] with a second CTE,
wherein a bottom surface of the opto-mechanical component [bottom of 28] is bonded to a top surface of the base [top of 16] via a solder layer [44 of ‘745], and
wherein a spacer [42,40 of ‘745] is disposed within the solder layer [44 of ‘745] to attach the bottom surface of the opto-mechanical component [bottom of 28] to the top surface of the base [top of 16].”
3. “wherein the opto-mechanical component includes at least one of: a fiber mount [28], a carrier, a prism, a lens, a waveguide device.”
26. “wherein the opto-mechanical component includes a fiber mount [28],
wherein the first CTE [of the base 16] and the second CTE [of the fiber mount 28] differ by greater than a threshold amount,
wherein the optical device further comprises a chip-on-submount (CoS) [18] with a third CTE attached to the top surface of the base [16] via a second solder layer [44 of ‘745],
wherein the first CTE [of the base 16] and the third CTE [of the CoS 18] differ by greater than the threshold amount,
wherein the spacer is a first spacer [42,40 of ‘745] and
wherein a second spacer [42,40 of ‘745] is disposed within the second solder layer to attach the CoS [18] to the top surface of the base [16].” The value of “threshold amount” is not specified by the claim and can be any value.
27. “wherein the first spacer and the second spacer [42,40 of ‘745] are formed from a gold material.”
28. “wherein the first spacer and the second spacer [42,40 of ‘745] are cylindrically shaped.”
Regarding claim 5, Figs 3-4 of ‘745 disclose a device as described above, but do not disclose:
5. “wherein a thickness of the solder layer is less than or equal to 10 micrometers.”
However, paragraph 0020 discloses the height of the spacer 42 to be 10-20 µm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to set the thickness of the spacer and the solder layer to less than or equal to 10 µm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claims 1, 29, 31-34, combination of ‘303 and ‘745 discloses an optical device as described above, but do not disclose two sets of CoS emitters with corresponding optical fibers within the same device.
However, devices with CoS emitters and fibers arrayed on the same base are well known in the art and only constitute multiplication of existing parts, as evidenced by APA.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to add a second combination of CoS emitter and fiber configured in the same way as the first one and attached to the base in the same way using spacers, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Combination of ‘303 and ‘745 discloses:
1. “a base [16] with a first coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE); and
an opto-mechanical component [18] with a second CTE,
wherein a bottom surface of the opto-mechanical component [bottom of 18] is bonded to a top surface of the base [top of 16] via a solder layer [44 of ‘745], and
wherein a spacer [42,40 of ‘745] is disposed within the solder layer [44 of ‘745] to attach the bottom surface of the opto-mechanical component [bottom of 18] to the top surface of the base [top of 16].”
29. “wherein the opto-mechanical component [18] is a first opto-mechanical component,
wherein the solder layer is a first solder layer [44 of ‘745],
wherein the spacer is a first spacer [42,40 of ‘745],
wherein the optical device further comprises a second opto-mechanical component [second CoS 18] with a third CTE [third CTE same as second CTE],
wherein a bottom surface of the second opto-mechanical component [bottom of second CoS 18] is bonded to a top surface of the base [top of 16] via a second solder layer [44 of ‘745], and
wherein a second spacer [42,40 of ‘745] is disposed within the second solder layer [44 of ‘745] to attach the bottom surface of the second opto-mechanical component [bottom of second CoS 18] to the top surface of the base [top of 16].”
31. “further comprising: a first emitter [20] attached to the first opto-mechanical component [18]; and
a second emitter [second emitter 20] attached to the second opto-mechanical
component [second CoS 18].”
32. “wherein an alignment tolerance for the first emitter [20] and the second emitter [second emitter 20] is less than a threshold amount.” The value of “threshold amount” is not specified by the claim and can be any value.
33. “wherein the first CTE and the second CTE differ by greater than a threshold amount, and
wherein the first CTE and the third CTE differ by greater than the threshold amount.” PCB ceramic substrate and copper pillars will inherently have different CTEs, “threshold amount” is not defined by the claim and can be considered to be any value.
34. “wherein the first opto-mechanical component is a first device sub-assembly that includes a first chip-on-submount (CoS) assembly [first 18] and a first fiber mount [first 28], and
wherein the second opto-mechanical component is a second device sub-assembly that includes a second chip-on-submount (CoS) assembly [second 18] and a second fiber mount [second 28].”
Admitted Prior Art
The rejection of claims 29, 31-34 (devices with CoS emitters and fibers arrayed on the same base) based on the well-known in the art statement is taken to be admitted prior art (hereinafter APA) because applicant either failed to traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice or that the traverse was inadequate, see MPEP 2144.03.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/25/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s argument “However, a spacer for controlling a volume of solder between a pillar and a bond finger and preventing surfaces from coming together, as described in MASUMOTO, does not disclose “a bottom surface of the opto-mechanical component is bonded to a top surface of the base via a solder layer," nor that "a spacer is disposed within the solder layer to attach the bottom surface of the opto-mechanical component to the top surface of the base," as recited in amended claim 1.”
The examiner disagrees and points out that neither the claims not the applicant’s invention disclose that “a bottom surface of the opto-mechanical component is bonded directly to a top surface of the base”. This can be seen in applicant’s figure 3, which clearly discloses that the bottom of 310 is not in direct contact with the top of 305. The two elements are connected by a solder layer 315 arranged around the spacer 320, which is exactly how the Masumoto device of Fig 4 is arranged. The bottom of 34 is not in direct contact with the top of 38, the two elements are connected by a solder layer 44 arranged around the spacer 42,40. Claim 1 does not disclose which elements can be considered as an opto-mechanical component or a base. Paragraph 0020 of applicant’s specification also discloses “For example, a spacer 128 may be disposed within (or surrounded by) solder layer 126 and form a stand off between opposing surfaces of package (102) and an opto-mechanical component (104/106 or 108) attached thereto, thereby controlling a thickness of solder layer 126 and a corresponding height of the opto-mechanical component above a surface of package 102.”
Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant’s attention is drawn to the references cited on form PTO-892 in the previous office action, which lists other references with similar features as the invention. However, none of them anticipate all the features of the pending claims.
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.
Contact Info
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to M. A. GOLUB-MILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-8602. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-5.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, MinSun Harvey can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/M. A. Golub-Miller/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828
Prosecution Insights