DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the amendment filed November 26, 2025. The amendment has been entered.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The prior drawing objections are withdrawn in view of the amended claims and the replacement sheet for Fig. 3.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The prior §112 rejections are withdrawn in view of the amended claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ding et al. (US 2017/0261708) in view of Hiroshi (JP 2005-136272), all of record.
(Re Claim 1) Ding teaches an optical communication component comprising:
a package substrate having a flat plate shape (see Figs. 1-3, package substrate 101 PCB); an optical communication element (123) mounted on an upper surface of the package substrate; an electronic circuit element (124) mounted on the upper surface of the package substrate and located at a position different from that of the optical communication element (see Figs. 1-3, ¶¶27-29); a direct-current block device (capacitor 131 or 132) mounted on the upper surface of the package substrate and located at a position different from those of the optical communication element and the electronic circuit element to cut off a direct-current signal included in a high-frequency signal transmitted to the electronic circuit element via a conductive pattern (105) provided on the package substrate (see Figs. 1-3, ¶¶27-29).
Ding fails to teach the claimed lid. However, related art from Hiroshi teaches a lid (Figs. 1-2, lid 12) provided over an upper portion of the package substrate to cover the electronic circuit element (Figs.1-2, 11, 14, lines 231-234) and the direct-current block device (passive element, lines 85-92, lines 98-100, lines 132-135), the lid 12 having a separation projecting portion 12b that projects toward the upper surface of the package substrate to separately define a region where the direct-current block device (passive element, lines 85-92, lines 98-100, lines 132-135) is present and a region where the electronic circuit element are present (Figs. 1-2, 11, 14, lines 231-234).
Hiroshi teaches when noisy high frequency components are present in a multi-component package, high frequency noise is an issue leading to unwanted crosstalk between the components, especially if they are close together. Hiroshi solves this problem by using a lid having a projecting partition to shield the components from each other. The partition prevents noise and crosstalk between the components. A PHOSITA would recognize this would be advantageous to Ding’s multi-component package also having high frequency components mounted together on a package substrate.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ding to incorporate the teachings of Hiroshi to provide the lid over an upper portion of the package substrate to cover the optical communication element, the electronic circuit element, and the direct-current block device, the lid having a separation projecting portion that projects toward the upper surface of the package substrate to separately define a region where the direct-current block device is present and a region where the optical communication element and the electronic circuit element are present to provide physical protection, EMI shielding, heat dissipation, and isolate the devices from one another thereby reducing noise between adjacent devices in the package (also see Hiroshi lines 157-223). Also, when placing Hiroshi’s lid onto Ding’s package substrate PCB 101, the projecting portion 12b will contact the upper surface of PCB 101, in particular at a location between 131 and 123 where wiring 105 is already present, thereby partitioning the components to mitigate noise and crosstalk. Noting Hiroshi’s lid is grounded through the surface wiring 1/13 connected to the ground through-holes 7a/7b (lines 260-261, lines 284-293) to provide EMI shielding, a PHOSITA would recognize the lid having the projecting portion should similarly connect to Ding’s surface wiring to similarly provide a ground connection to similarly provide EMI shielding. Thus, a PHOSITA would find it obvious to similarly connect the lid in Ding’s device such that the projecting portion contacts the conducting pattern on the upper surface of the package substrate to provide a grounded lid.
(Re Claim 2) wherein the lid is at a ground potential.
Ding notes the package substrate having a ground plane (¶¶42-45 and claims 3, 5, 9, and 11). Hiroshi teaches wherein the lid is at a ground potential (lid 12, lines 260-261, lines 284-293). When adding Hiroshi’s lid to Ding’s package substrate, a PHOSITA would find it obvious to it connect the lid to ground as taught by Hiroshi as this will provide for conventional EMI shielding and provide a path to ground for ESD protection.
(Re Claim 3) the conductive pattern on the package substrate includes RF wires placed to connect, as a whole, the direct-current block device, the electronic circuit element, and the optical communication element such that the direct-current block device is interposed between the RF wires (see Fig. 2, direct-current block device 131, electronic circuit element 124, optical communication element 123, RF wires 105, ¶¶27,36).
(Re Claim 4) a portion of each of the RF wires has a wiring structure in which the portion of the RF wire temporarily extends into an inner layer of the package substrate via one metal via wire and then returns again to a surface layer via another metal via wire at another position (RF wires 105, see annotated Fig. from Ding).
PNG
media_image1.png
266
831
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Re Claim 5) Ding does not explicitly disclose a ground electrode is provided in a surface layer of the metal via wire and the ground electrode is electrically connected to a tip surface of the separation projecting portion of the lid, however a PHOSITA would find this obvious in view of Ding’s Fig. 2, ¶¶42-45 and claims 3, 5, 9, and 11, when adding Hiroshi’s lid and further in view of Hiroshi teaching a ground electrode (9) is provided in a surface layer of the metal via wire (7a, 7b) and the ground electrode is electrically connected (13) to a tip surface of the separation projecting portion (12b) of the lid (12) (Figs. 1 & 2). A PHOSITA would find it obvious to incorporate the teachings of Hiroshi to provide a ground electrode in a surface layer of the metal via wire and the ground electrode is electrically connected to a tip surface of the separation projecting portion of the lid to function as the connection between the ground and grounded optical communication component package.
(Re Claim 6) the ground electrode (9) and the tip surface of the separation projecting portion (12b) of the lid (12) are maintained in an electrically connected state by adhesive (13) fixation using an adhesive (Figs. 1 & 2).
(Re Claim 7) the adhesive is a non-conductive adhesive adhesively fixing a side wall of the separation projecting portion in the vicinity of the tip surface thereof to a top surface of the package substrate or a conductive adhesive adhesively fixing the ground electrode to the tip surface of the separation projecting portion (conductive adhesive 13 adhesively fixing the ground electrode (9) to the tip surface of the separation projecting portion (12b), lines 282-296, lines 296-302, lines 239-245).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ding and Hiroshi as applied above and further on view of Thacker et al. (US 2014/0321803), newly cited.
(Re Claim 8) Hiroshi teaches material of the lid is a metal material having a high thermal conductivity (copper, lines 273, lines 186-192).
Hiroshi and Ding are silent regarding connecting the package to a PCB, however it is noted Hiroshi’s package substrate would be conventionally mounted on a PCB using solder bumps 6. Related art form Thacker specifically teaches a chip package substrate 136, corresponding to Ding’s 101, is attached to another PCB (¶¶51, 61, 68). This would be obvious to a PHOSITA as this allows the package to connect to power, ground, I/O, and other components for functionality.
A material of the package substrate is a metal and a material of a conventional PCB is also metal, and the CTEs of metals will be “close”.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/26/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues Hiroshi’s lid does not connect to a conductive pattern on the top surface of the package substrate. The Examiner respectfully disagrees, the lid at projecting portion 12b contacts the conductive pattern 13 which is in electrical contact with plating 9 and wiring layer 1 as shown in Hiroshi’s figures. Ding similarly forms wiring in and at the surface of the package substrate 101, readily available for making a ground connection with the lid as discussed in the updated rejection above. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIK T. K. PETERSON whose telephone number is (571)272-3997. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-5 pm (CST).
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, Jessica Manno can be reached at 571-272-2339. 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.
/ERIK T. K. PETERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898