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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see “Remarks”, filed 28 January 2026, with respect to the rejections of Claims 1-7 and 9-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0126058 to Lu, et al. (“US1”) have been fully considered and are persuasive (see Remarks at pages 8-9). Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0404551 to Tadayon et al. (“US2”).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2.
Regarding Claim 1, US2 describes a microelectronics package (100, 200; see Figs 1-2 and 11-13), comprising:
a glass interposer (210, see [0036]) between a first organic substrate (208, see [0039]) and a second organic substrate (206, see [0037]), the first organic substrate comprising a first surface directly on a first side of the glass interposer and the second organic substrate directly on a second side of the glass interposer (see Figs 1-2, 11-12), the glass interposer defining through glass vias (510, 520, 694, see [0048]);
a photonic integrated layer (420, see [0035] and [0042]) attached to a second surface of the first organic substrate opposite the first surface, the photonic integrated layer comprising photo detectors (see [0048]); and
a lens (680, see [0056]) at least partially within or over a first cavity (692, 694) of the first organic substrate, at least partially within or over the through glass vias, and at least partially within or over a second cavity (formed at 530) of the second organic substrate, the lens and the through glass vias defining an optical pathway substantially orthogonal to the first side of the glass interposer, through the first organic substrate, the glass interposer, and the second organic substrate to couple to the photo detectors (see Figs 1, 11, and 12 and [0063]-[0087]).
US2 is silent as to the material comprising the photonic integrated layer (420).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the photonic integrated layer of US2 comprising glass, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. The motivation for doing so would have been to take advantage of manufacturing and optical properties of glass materials.
Regarding Claim 2, US2 describes the lens within the first cavity, the through glass vias, and the second cavity (see Fig 12).
Regarding Claim 3, US2 describes the lens on a polymer material (630, see [0054], [0056]) and over the second surface, the polymer material within the first cavity, the through glass vias, and the second cavity.
Regarding Claim 4, US2 describes the lens over the second surface, and the first cavity, the through glass vias, and the second cavity absent any fill material (see Fig 11).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 26-39 are allowed.
Claims 5-11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 26-33 stand allowed for the reasons set forth in the Office Action mailed 30 October 2025.
Claims 5 and 34 describe a photonic integrated glass layer comprising an interleaved stack of glass layers and dielectric and patterned metal layers and one or more photo detectors embedded in one of the glass layers, the photonic integrated glass layer attached to a second surface of the first organic substrate opposite the first surface.
Claim 6 describes a glass embedded multi-die interconnect bridge embedded in the first organic substrate between and optically connecting the photonic integrated glass layer to a second photonic integrated glass layer.
Claim 7 describes a pillar extending vertically from the second surface of the first organic substrate to a bottom surface of a second die.
Claim 10 describes a motherboard in optical communication with the through glass vias.
These limitations represent subject matter not described or reasonably suggested, in conjunction with the further limitations of the present claims, by the prior art of record.
Claim 9 depends from Claim 7 and are therefore contains at least the same allowable subject matter.
Claim 11 depends from Claim 10 and are therefore contains at least the same allowable subject matter.
Claims 35-29 depend from Claim 34 and are therefore contain at least the same allowable subject matter.
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 JERRY RAHLL whose telephone number is (571)272-2356. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am-5:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Uyen-Chau Le can be reached at 571-272-2397. 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.
/JERRY RAHLL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights