CTFR 17/870,719 CTFR 98685 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. Response to Amendment The amendment filed on 01 May, 2026 has been fully considered and entered. Examiner thanks Applicant for their effort in identifying the relevant references in the citations of the previous Office Action. The citations have been amended to add clarity in this regard. Response to Arguments 07-37 AIA Applicant's arguments filed 01 May, 2026 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive, with the exception of a few points. The responses to both the unpersuasive and persuasive arguments are detailed below . Regarding claims 1-6, 9-11, and 24-25 Applicant argues that the terms “central region” and “peripheral regions” are clear to one of ordinary skill in the art and defined by claims 4 and 3 with the exposed surface of the metalens structure as the frame of reference. Additionally, applicant states that the terms “central” and “peripheral” do not require precise boundaries, since the claim is satisfied so long as there exists, on the bounded exposed surface of the metalens structure, at least one region in or near the center of that exposed surface where the footprint of the vertical structures is different from the footprint of the vertical structures at one or more regions toward the periphery of that same exposed surface. Examiner finds this argument to be persuasive, in particular considering a comparative interpretation of the terms “central” and “peripheral”. Examiner has withdrawn the 112(b) rejection accordingly and applied the broad interpretation of “central” and “peripheral” suggested by applicant, i.e. that the terms “central” and “peripheral” do not require precise boundaries, since the claim is satisfied so long as there exists, on the bounded exposed surface of the metalens structure, at least one region in or near the center of that exposed surface where the footprint of the vertical structures is different from the footprint of the vertical structures at one or more regions toward the periphery of that same exposed surface. Applicant states that in several of the obviousness rejections, the Office Action cites paragraph numbers and figures without specifying to which reference each citation belongs. Examiner has reviewed the rejections cited by Applicant and contends that they are clear, since each reference is pointed out in the body of the rejection, but to add further clarity has added the relevant reference within the parentheses for each citation where it was not present in the previous Office Action. Applicant has stated that Examiner’s reference to elements of Wei Fig. 5 were erroneous, since the text refers to these elements with respect to Wei Fig. 2. Examiner disagrees with Applicant on this matter. Each of the referenced elements is also present in Fig. 5, as relied on by the Examiner in the previous Office Action. Applicant states that none of the references alone or in combination teach, suggest, or disclose each feature of the independent claims. Examiner does not find this argument persuasive. Examiner’s response to the remaining arguments demonstrates that the references in combination would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art a combination including all of the features required by the claim. Furthermore, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller , 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Applicant argues that Wei does not disclose any embodiment in which the optical coupler outputs an optical beam from a terminus, nor does Wei disclose configuring an optical path between such an output coupler and an optical interface component external to and to be optically coupled to the photonic device. Examiner disagrees. Wei Fig. 10 illustrates an example head mounted device incorporating the in-coupling structures of Figs. 1A-9 (see paragraph 0069). This embodiment provides for outcoupling light from an output coupler and configuring an optical path between such an output coupler and an optical interface component external to and to be optically coupled to the photonic device. Additionally, there are numerous applications for a device that uses an input coupler with a metalens to input light from a light source to a waveguide, such as the arrangement taught by Wei, and also contain a parallel/symmetric arrangement of metalenses to output the light. In general, the considerations are the same for inputting and outputting light in such devices, such as how to route the light and minimize loss. An additional example of this specifically using metalenses can be found in Kress et al. (US 2021/0405255; see Fig. 5B), not relied on for any rejection. Applicant argues that there would be no motivation to combine Wei and Vallance . 07-37-04 AIA In response to applicant' s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand that structures designed for coupling light into a waveguide, including gratings and beam-shaping elements, can be used to output light from a waveguide just as well . Applicant argues that Vallance does not provide any teaching of a metalens structure on the substrate of an optoelectronic device that configures an optical path between an output-emitting optical coupler and an optical interface component, as recited in claim 1. Examiner does not find this argument to be persuasive because Examiner did not rely on Vallance for teaching a metalens structure, as this feature was taught by Wei. Examiner relied upon Vallance for demonstrating a simple principle that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand: that in general, since light will travel along the same path in one direction compared to the reverse, similar/symmetric structures can be used for in-couplers and out-couplers. Vallance, for example, uses similar reflective surfaces 24 and 25 to reshape and redirect a beam before it is input into and after it is output from a PIC 100 (see Vallance Fig. 4B) and uses similar grating couplers 104 and 105 for receiving and outputting light from a waveguide. One of ordinary skill in the art would thus know that the combination of metalens and grating coupler at the input of the Wei device could be duplicated on the other end of the waveguide to output light and that the same structure could be used to output light traveling along a reverse path . 07-37-13 AIA 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). Applicant argues that Vallance does not teach that any one grating coupler can serve as both an input coupler and an output coupler. This is considered to be within the general knowledge in the art, since standard diffraction gratings obey optical reciprocity; the rejection also does not rely on such a feature being taught. Applicant argues that nothing in Vallance suggests that Wei’s metalens 193 can or should be re-architectured into a metalens that receives a beam output from an active optical coupler within the active region of the photonic device and directs that beam to an external optical interface component. The “active region” is not considered to be pertinent to the rejection. Vallance teaches coupling light into and out of a waveguide from using the same structures, namely the reflective surfaces 24/25 and the grating couplers 104/105, on the input and output side of the waveguide. This is a demonstration of a general feature known in the art and not dependent on the specifics of the Vallance PIC. Applicant argues against the application of In re Einstein to the rejection of claim 1. Examiner finds this argument persuasive and has removed In re Einstein from the obviousness rejection. However, this does not change the conclusion that given the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art and given the similar input coupling and output coupling arrangement taught by Vallance, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the same general structure for incoupling light that was disclosed by Wei to outcouple light, in order to combine the benefits of the Wei input coupler including its efficiency with the ability to outcouple light from the PIC. Regarding claims 14-17 Applicant argues that Witzens fails to teach metalenses, and that the lenses of Wei are integral to the PIC, not on an optically transparent block separate from and abutting it, and that that because Witzens teaches two conventional lenses, it cannot be relied upon for the claimed configuration requiring two metalenses. 07-37-13 AIA 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). Additionally, Wei shows that metalenses are equivalent structures to refractive lenses in the art, and thus it would have been obvious to use either when making the modification including two lenses relied upon in the rejection of claim 15 (see Wei paragraph 0035). This has been clarified in the rejection below. Applicant argues that the motivation to further modify the Wei device using a Witzens-style interposer block relies on impermissible hindsight reasoning. 07-37-03 AIA In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Regarding claims 18-23 Applicant argues that the asserted art-recognized equivalence between metalenses and refractive lenses is not established by Wei. Examiner disagrees. Wei states, in the paragraph (0035) relied on as evidence of art-recognized equivalence in the previous office action: “While additional embodiments of the disclosure are illustrated with a refractive microlens as the light director, it is understood by those in the art that the microlenses illustrated in this disclosure may be replace[d] by metalenses that achieve the same optical characteristics as the microlenses.” This establishes the equivalence relied upon in the rejection. Applicant further suggests in arguments presented on pages 26-27 of the reply filed on 01 May, 2026 that “art-recognized” equivalence essentially needs to be shown for the exact claimed configuration. Following the reasoning of Applicant’s argument, there would be no need to establish art recognized equivalence if a device identical to the claimed one were disclosed in the prior art. In this case, both references are concerned with light coupling structures for PICs, and Wei directly speaks to their equivalence for steering and shaping a light beam, as explained above. Therefore, the reference properly establishes the art-recognized equivalence. Applicant argues that Na’s package substrate is not configured to serve as part of the optical path. 07-37-13 AIA 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). Applicant argues that modifying the Na reference to make the photonic device optically coupled to the package substrate would require fundamentally re-architecting Na to either (i) embed the PIC chip in the package substrate 101 in the manner of Mayukh’s embedded PIC architecture or (ii) provide through-substrate optical paths in package substrate 101, and that the latter modification is not supported by a proper motivation to combine. Examiner disagrees. As explained in the Office Action mailed on 02 December, 2025, the described modification provides additional optical routing to allow optical signals to be routed below the substrate, allowing for optical connection to additional components, including components on the opposite side of the substrate from the PIC. Applicant argues that the claimed “metalens structure on the substrate” requires a metalens structure on the substrate of the photonic device, not on the package substrate or somewhere else in the package. Applicant further argues that in Na, lens 140 is not on the substrate of the PIC chip 105 (which would correspond to the photonic device’s substrate). Examiner disagrees and considers the configuration of Na to fall under the BRI of the claim, wherein the modified Na device would meet the claimed “metalens structure on the substrate” based on the relative configuration of lens 140 and PIC chip 105, since given the BRI, the lens 140 is on the PIC chip 105 (see, e.g. where the structure including 140 is attached directly to the PIC chip 105 in Na Fig. 1). 07-37-03 AIA In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-6, 9-11, and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei et al. (US 2022/0065407; hereinafter Wei) in view of Vallance et al. (US 2017/0299824; hereinafter Vallance) . Regarding claim 1 : Wei disclosesA photonic device (Wei Fig. 1C) including: a substrate (Wei Fig. 1C, substrate 110); photonic circuitry (see Wei title and paragraph 0021, a PIC includes photonic circuitry) on the substrate; an optical waveguide structure (Wei Fig. 1C, waveguide 170) on the substrate; an optical coupler (Wei Fig. 1C, grating 172) coupled to the photonic circuitry at one end thereof by way of the optical waveguide structure, and having a terminus at another end thereof (Wei Fig. 1C has this structure). Wei further disclosesa metalens (Wei Fig. 1C, metalens 193) structure on the substrate, the metalens structure including a plurality of vertical nanostructures (see Wei paragraph 0026) to configure an optical path between the optical coupler and an optical interface component that is to be optically coupled to the photonic device (Wei Fig. 1C shows this). Wei fails to disclose that the terminus outputs an optical beam, since the coupler of Wei Fig. 1C is coupling light into the PIC. It would be well known to one of ordinary skill in the art that the same general design can be used for input couplers and output couplers, since the light path is simply reversed, but the considerations such as minimizing loss are the same. For example, Vallance teaches an optical assembly including an input coupler, an output coupler, and a PIC, and shows that there is a paralleled/mirrored arrangement between the input side and the output side, including a focusing element 24/25 (see Vallance paragraph 0046) and a grating coupler 104/105. Since it is well known to one of ordinary skill in the art that the same general design can be used for input couplers and output couplers based on the principle of optical reciprocity, such as in the configuration taught by Vallance, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the same general structure for incoupling light that was disclosed by Wei to outcouple light, in order to combine the benefits of the Wei device including its efficiency (see Wei paragraph 0024) with the ability to outcouple light from the PIC. Regarding claim 24 : The method for fabricating recited results in the structure of claim 1, which is obvious over Wei in view of Vallance, as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above. Since the method steps of claim 24 do not require any specific manufacture techniques, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the recited method steps of claim 24 to fabricate the device of claim 1 using conventional manufacturing techniques well known in the art. Regarding claim 2 : Modified Wei teaches the photonic device of claim 1, as applied above. Wei further teaches that the metalens structure collimates the optical beam (see Wei paragraph 0024). Additionally, Vallance teaches that the curved reflector collimates the light (see Vallance paragraph 0046). Based on this, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, when making the modification described in the rejection of claim 1, to modify the Wei device such that the metalens structure is to configure the optical path by at least one of expanding the optical beam from the optical coupler or substantially collimating the optical beam from the optical coupler. Regarding claim 25 : The method for fabricating recited results in the structure of claim 2, which is obvious over Wei in view of Vallance, as explained in the rejection of claim 2 above. Since the method steps of claim 25 do not require any specific manufacture techniques, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the recited method steps of claim 25 to fabricate the device of claim 2 using conventional manufacturing techniques well known in the art. Regarding claim 3 : Modified Wei teachesThe photonic device of claim 1 (as applied above), wherein the vertical structures define a heterogenous pattern across an exposed surface of the metalens structure (see paragraph Wei 0026, nano-pillars are disclosed to be non-periodic and have different diameters, considered to be a heterogeneous pattern). Regarding claim 4: Modified Wei teachesThe photonic device of claim 3 (as applied above), wherein a footprint of the vertical structures at a central region of the exposed surface of the metalens structure is different from a footprint of the vertical structures at peripheral regions of the exposed surface of the metalens structure (the nano-pillars with different diameters would meet this claim limitation, since central region and peripheral region are not limited by particular boundaries to distinguish from the nano-pillars having different diameters between any two points on the microlens disclosed by Wei in paragraph 0026). Regarding claim 5 : Modified Wei teachesThe photonic device of claim 3 (as applied above), wherein the exposed surface of the metalens structure is substantially flat (see Wei paragraph 0026). Regarding claim 6 : Modified Wei teachesThe photonic device of claim 5 (as applied above), further comprising a cavity therein (Wei Fig. 1C, void 199), the metalens structure in the cavity (Wei Fig. 1C shows this). Regarding claim 9 : Modified Wei teachesThe photonic device of claim 1 (as applied above), wherein the optical path includes a first optical path portion between the optical coupler and the metalens structure (see Wei Fig. 1C, portion between surface 129 and grating coupler 172), and a second optical path portion between the metalens structure and the optical interface component to be optically coupled to the photonic device (Wei Fig. 1C, portion of path within void). Regarding claim 10 : Modified Wei teachesThe photonic device of claim 6 (as applied above), wherein the optical coupler is a vertical coupler (Wei Fig. 1C shows a vertical coupler). Regarding claim 11 : Modified Wei teachesThe photonic device of claim 10 (as applied above), wherein the exposed surface of the metalens structure is substantially parallel with a top surface of the substrate (Wei Fig. 1C shows this where the exposed surface of the metalens structure is considered to be the top surface facing the void; see also Wei paragraph 0026) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei et al. (US 2022/0065407; hereinafter Wei) in view of Vallance et al. (US 2017/0299824; hereinafter Vallance) and further in view of Witzens (WO 2021/170200; in the following rejections, reference is made to corresponding US publication US 2023/0152537; hereinafter Witzens) . Regarding claim 14 : Modified Wei teachesThe photonic device of claim 10 (as applied above), wherein the substrate, photonic circuitry, optical waveguide structure, and optical coupler are part of a photonic integrated circuit (PIC) of the photonic device (the photonic device, as applied above, is a photonic integrated circuit including the substrate, photonic circuitry, the optical waveguide structure, and the optical coupler), the photonic device further including a metalens assembly, the metalens assembly comprising the metalens structure (the structure including the metalens is considered a metalens assembly) and an optically transparent block abutting a top surface of the PIC (Wei Fig. 1C, light director layer 191). The photonic device of Wei Fig. 1C does not have an optically transparent block abutting a top surface of the PIC, wherein the metalens structure is on a surface of the optically transparent block that is substantially parallel to a top surface of the substrate. However, the embodiment of Wei Fig. 5 shows an optically transparent spacer layer (240) on a top surface of the PIC, wherein a lens (133) is on a surface of the optically transparent spacer layer that is substantially parallel to a top surface of the substrate (110). The optically transparent block is taught to provide a planar surface for the optically coupled device, in this case a light source. However, the optically transparent spacer is not considered to be an optically transparent block abutting the top surface of the PIC, since it is a part of the PIC. However, Witzens, also related to optical coupling to/from PICs including grating couplers and lenses (see Witzens title, abstract, and Figs. 1-9), teaches that lenses (Witzens Fig. 2(a), lenses 320a) placed in the optical path between an output coupler of a PIC (see Witzens paragraph 0042 and Fig. 2(a), coupler 110/112) and downstream optical components (Witzens Fig. 2(a) second optical element 200) can be attached to optical interposers that are optically transparent blocks placed on top of the PICs (Witzens Figs. 1-8 and abstract). This provides a more modular design while allowing the angles in which beams are emitted from the PIC to be very well controlled (see Witzens paragraph 0036). Based on this, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the Wei device by including the metalens on the optically transparent block above the PIC, such that the optically transparent block abuts a top surface of the PIC and the metalens structure is on a surface of the optically transparent block that is substantially parallel to a top surface of the substrate, in order to provide a more modular arrangement while still ensuring that the angle of beam emission is well-controlled. Regarding claim 15 : Modified Wei teaches the photonic device of claim 14, as applied above. Witzens further teaches providing at least one, but typically two lenses in the optical interposer allows matching a beam profile between a PIC and a downstream optical components (see Witzens paragraph 0036). In the two lens configuration (such as is shown in Witzens Figs. 2(a) and 15), which allows a vertical coupling to/from a component directly above the PIC, the two lenses face each other. Additionally, Wei shows that metalenses are equivalent structures to refractive lenses in the art (see Wei paragraph 0035). Based on this, including one or two lenses (either refractive lenses or metalenses, as they are disclosed by Wei to be equivalent structures for the same purpose) in the optical interposer is considered a matter of obvious design choice. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select the number of metalenses appropriate for matching a beam profile between a PIC and a downstream optical component in the modified Wei device, including providing a first metalens structure and a second metalens structure facing each other. Regarding claim 16 : Modified Wei teaches the photonic device of claim 15, as applied above. Witzens further teaches modular glass interposer building blocks, being fabricated individually and then assembled, for ease of manufacturing (see Fig. 15 and paragraph 0074). These interposers include a cavity for facing the PIC (Fig. 15, cavity containing lens 602B), the first lens structure disposed on a surface of the cavity facing the vertical coupler (see Figs. 13 and 15), and the second metalens disposed on a top surface of the optically transparent block (Fig. 15, lens 602a is on a top surface of the optically transparent block). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to preserve this general arrangement, when making the modified Wei device described above, since it would protect the metalens structure, as it would be recessed from the outer surface of the interposer and the cavity walls would shield it from damage. Regarding claim 17 : Modified Wei teachesThe photonic device of claim 16 (as applied above), wherein the optical path includes a first optical path portion between the optical coupler and the first metalens structure, a second optical path portion through the optically transparent block between the first metalens structure and the second metalens structure, and a third optical path portion from the second metalens structure in a direction toward the optical interface component to be optically coupled to the PIC (the modified Wei device, as described above, would have this configuration, since light would travel from the optical coupler to the first metalens, then through the optically transparent block to the second metalens structure, and then toward an optical interface component) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 18-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Na et al. (US 2013/0279844; hereinafter Na) in view of Mayukh et al. (US 2023/0367087; hereinafter Mayukh) as evidenced by Wei et al. (US 2022/0065407; hereinafter Wei) . Regarding claim 18 : Na disclosesA semiconductor package (Na Fig. 1), comprising: a package substrate (Na Fig. 1, package substrate 101; a photonic device (Na Fig. 1, PIC chip 105) on the package substrate and electrically coupled thereto (see Na paragraph 0020), the photonic device including: a substrate (see Na paragraph 0024); photonic circuitry on the substrate (Na Fig. 1, optical devices 115, see paragraph 0020); an optical waveguide structure on the substrate (see Na paragraph 0020); an optical coupler coupled to the photonic circuitry at one end thereof by way of the optical waveguide structure (Na Fig. 1, vertical coupler 130; see Na paragraph 0022), and having a terminus at another end thereof to output an optical beam (Na Fig. 2a, grating 265 has this feature). Na further discloses a lens structure on the substrate (Na Fig. 1, lens 140) to configure an optical path between the optical coupler and an optical interface component that is to be optically coupled to the photonic device (Na Fig. 1, fiber). Na fails to teach that the photonic device is optically coupled to the package substrate and that the lens is a metalens structure on the substrate, the metalens structure including a plurality of vertical structures to configure an optical path between the optical coupler and an optical interface component that is to be optically coupled to the photonic device. However, Mayukh also related to co-packaged assemblies including PICs and package substrates (see Mayukh paragraph 0013 and Fig. 1), teaches optically connecting a photonic integrated circuit and a substrate, which allows optical routing through the substrate (see Mayukh paragraph 0050). In order to provide optical routing through the substrate, in applications where it is desirable to couple light from the PIC through a package substrate to downstream components on the other side of the substrate, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the Na device in order to optically connect the photonic integrated circuit and the package substrate since it was taught by Mayukh. Modified Na therefore teaches the claimed invention except that refractive lenses are used instead of metalenses. Wei shows that metalenses are equivalent structures in the art (see Wei paragraph 0035). Therefore, because these two types of lenses were art-recognized equivalents at the time the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute metalenses for conventional lenses (See MPEP §2144.06). Regarding claim 19 : Modified Na teaches the semiconductor package of claim 18, as applied above. Additionally, Na shows the light propagating toward the lens structure is to configure the optical path by at least one of expanding the optical beam from the optical coupler or substantially collimating the beam from the optical coupler. However, the lens would necessarily configure the optical beam in one of these ways, since if the beam is not collimated by the lens it would expand eventually. Regarding claim 20 : Modified Na teachesThe semiconductor package of claim 18 (as applied above), wherein the vertical structures define a heterogenous pattern across an exposed surface of the metalens structure (see Wei paragraph 0026, nano-pillars are disclosed to be non-periodic and have different diameters, considered to be a heterogeneous pattern). Regarding claim 21 : Na disclosesAn integrated circuit (IC) device assembly including: a printed circuit board (Na Fig. 1, PCB 170); a package substrate (Na Fig. 1, package substrate 101) on the printed circuit board and electrically coupled thereto (see Na paragraph 0019); and a photonic device (Na Fig. 1, photonic device 105) on the package substrate and electrically coupled thereto (see Na paragraph 0020), the photonic device including: a substrate (see Na paragraph 0024); photonic circuitry on the substrate (Na Fig. 1, optical devices 115, see paragraph 0020); an optical waveguide structure on the substrate (see Na paragraph 0020); an optical coupler coupled to the photonic circuitry at one end thereof by way of the optical waveguide structure (Na Fig. 1, vertical coupler 130; see paragraph 0022), and having a terminus at another end thereof to output an optical beam (Na Fig. 2a, grating 265 has this feature). Na further discloses a lens structure on the substrate (Na Fig. 1, lens 140) to configure an optical path between the optical coupler and an optical interface component that is to be optically coupled to the photonic device (Na Fig. 1, fiber). Na fails to teach that the photonic device is optically coupled to the package substrate and that the lens is a metalens structure on the substrate, the metalens structure including a plurality of vertical structures to configure an optical path between the optical coupler and an optical interface component that is to be optically coupled to the photonic device. However, Mayukh also related to co-packaged assemblies including PICs and package substrates (see Mayukh paragraph 0013 and Fig. 1), teaches optically connecting a photonic integrated circuit and a substrate, which allows optical routing through the substrate (see Mayukh paragraph 0050). In order to provide optical routing through the substrate, in applications where it is desirable to couple light from the PIC through a package substrate to downstream components on the other side of the substrate, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the Na device in order to optically connect the photonic integrated circuit and the package substrate since it was taught by Mayukh. Modified Na therefore teaches the claimed invention except that refractive lenses are used instead of metalenses. Wei shows that metalenses are equivalent structures in the art (see Wei paragraph 0035). Therefore, because these two types of lenses were art-recognized equivalents at the time the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute metalenses for conventional lenses (See MPEP §2144.06). Regarding claim 22 : Modified Na teaches the IC device assembly of claim 21, as applied above. Na is silent as to whether the lens structure is to configure the optical path by at least one of expanding the optical beam from the optical coupler or substantially collimating the beam from the optical coupler. However, the lens would necessarily configure the optical beam in one of these ways, since if the beam is not collimated by the lens it would expand eventually. Regarding claim 23 : Modified Na teaches The IC device assembly of any one of claims 21 (as applied above), wherein the vertical structures define a heterogenous pattern across an exposed surface of the metalens structure (see Wei paragraph 0026, nano-pillars are disclosed to be non-periodic and have different diameters, considered to be a heterogeneous pattern). Conclusion 07-39 AIA 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 Kirsten D Endresen whose telephone number is (703)756-1533. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday. 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 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. /KIRSTEN D. ENDRESEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2874 /THOMAS A HOLLWEG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874 Application/Control Number: 17/870,719 Page 2 Art Unit: 2874 Application/Control Number: 17/870,719 Page 3 Art Unit: 2874 Application/Control Number: 17/870,719 Page 4 Art Unit: 2874 Application/Control Number: 17/870,719 Page 5 Art Unit: 2874 Application/Control Number: 17/870,719 Page 6 Art Unit: 2874 Application/Control Number: 17/870,719 Page 7 Art Unit: 2874 Application/Control Number: 17/870,719 Page 8 Art Unit: 2874 Application/Control Number: 17/870,719 Page 9 Art Unit: 2874 Application/Control Number: 17/870,719 Page 10 Art Unit: 2874 Application/Control Number: 17/870,719 Page 11 Art Unit: 2874 Application/Control Number: 17/870,719 Page 12 Art Unit: 2874 Application/Control Number: 17/870,719 Page 13 Art Unit: 2874 Application/Control Number: 17/870,719 Page 14 Art Unit: 2874 Application/Control Number: 17/870,719 Page 15 Art Unit: 2874 Application/Control Number: 17/870,719 Page 16 Art Unit: 2874 Application/Control Number: 17/870,719 Page 17 Art Unit: 2874 Application/Control Number: 17/870,719 Page 18 Art Unit: 2874 Application/Control Number: 17/870,719 Page 19 Art Unit: 2874 Application/Control Number: 17/870,719 Page 20 Art Unit: 2874 Application/Control Number: 17/870,719 Page 21 Art Unit: 2874 Application/Control Number: 17/870,719 Page 22 Art Unit: 2874 Application/Control Number: 17/870,719 Page 23 Art Unit: 2874 Application/Control Number: 17/870,719 Page 24 Art Unit: 2874 Application/Control Number: 17/870,719 Page 25 Art Unit: 2874 Application/Control Number: 17/870,719 Page 26 Art Unit: 2874
Prosecution Insights