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 .
The instant application having Application No. 18/062,844 filed on 12/07/2022 is presented for examination by the examiner.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/21/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to the communication filed 1/21/2026.
The amendments to claims 1, 2, 6, 18, 19, 46, and 47, filed 12/18/2025, are acknowledged and accepted.
The cancellation of claims 7, 13, 14, 49, and 50, filed 12/18/2025, is acknowledged and accepted.
The addition of claims 51-55, filed 12/18/2025, is acknowledged and accepted.
Claims 1-6, 8-12, 15-20, 46-48, and 51-55 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding the limitations “the micro-substrate and the micro-optical element are unitary, monolithic, and comprise a common material” and “the micro-optical element extends away from and beyond the micro-substrate surface in a direction orthogonal to the micro-substrate surface” have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 3 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments regarding the use of Budd (US 20200049906 A1) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Bower (US 20160093600 A1) is an electrical device that relies on terminals and interconnection lines, whereas Budd (US 20200049906 A1) is an optical device that receives light from a coupler and focuses it through lensed interposer onto a VCSEL. Therefore, modifying Bower’s device to include the lens of Budd would cause Bower to not operate for its intended purpose as an electrical device and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to make the modification because it would change the principle of operation of the resulting device. Examiner argues that the use of Bower to teach the limitation of claim 1 does not incorporate the electrical components of Bower, therefore modifying Bower to include a passive optical component from Budd would not render the resulting device unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. One of ordinary skill in the art could reasonably choose to select the passive elements of Bower modified by the lens of Budd if their intention was to manufacture a passive micro-assembly. “A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). “[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle.” Id. at 420, 82 USPQ2d 1397. Office personnel may also take into account “the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” Id. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. See MPEP §2141.03(I).
Applicant's arguments regarding claim 47 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the interconnection lines 1708 of Bower have not been shown to extend away from and beyond the micro-substrate or micro-optical element. Examiner argues that 1708 “interconnection lines” of Bower do indeed extend away from and beyond micro-optical element as shown in examiner’s markup of Figure 17B of Bower. Examiner’s markup of Figure 17B points out the boundaries of 1702 “micro-system” and that 1708 “interconnection lines” clearly cross that boundary while continuing to extend away from and beyond 1702 “micro-system”.
PNG
media_image1.png
501
995
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant's arguments regarding claims 2 and 48 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the Office Action has not shown how 1708 “interconnection lines” relate to the breakable tether of Figure 14 of Bower. Examiner argues that Bower (Figure 14) was used to teach a breakable tether which could be utilized in Bower (Figure 17B) in order to break when the micro-system is picked up by a transfer device (paragraph 0132). Further, paragraph 0019 of Bower states “the fine interconnections are at least in part on or in the tether”.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
Claim 6 has a limitation which includes a “second micro-optical element”, however there is no mention of a “second micro-optical element” in the specification.
Claim 54 has limitations which include a “second micro-substrate” and a “second micro-optical element”, however there is no mention of a “second micro-substrate” and a “second micro-optical element” in the specification.
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.
Claims 1, 4-6, 11, 15, 46, 51, and 54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bower (US 20160093600 A1)(Figure 17B), in view of Bower (US 20160093600 A1)(Figure 16B), in view of Budd (US 20200049906 A1), and further in view of Yamada (US 20100289161 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Bower (Figure 17B) discloses a micro-optical component, in at least Figure 17B, comprising:
a micro-substrate (1704 “substrate”, Figure 17B) having a micro-substrate surface (see examiner’s markup of Figure 17B);
a micro-optical element (1702 “micro-system”, Figure 17B); and
wherein the micro-optical component has a thickness no greater than 250 μm (paragraph 0099 states "The thickness of micro-devices is typically smaller than either the width or length of the device, for example less than 20 microns, less than 10 microns, or less than 5 microns" and paragraph 0038 states “the destination substrate has a thickness from 5 to 10 microns”).
Below is an examiner’s markup of Figure 17B of Bower (Figure 17B) pointing out a micro-substrate surface.
PNG
media_image2.png
486
903
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, Bower (Figure 17B) does not disclose a micro-optical element disposed on the micro-substrate surface, and wherein the micro-optical element is a passive optical component, wherein the micro-substrate and the micro-optical element are unitary, monolithic, and comprise a common material, and wherein the micro-optical element extends away from and beyond the micro-substrate surface in a direction orthogonal to the micro-substrate surface.
Bower (Figure 16B) teaches a micro-optical element (1602 “micro-system”, Figure 16B) disposed on the micro-substrate surface (1604 “substrate”, Figure 16B).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the micro-optical component of Bower (Figure 17B) modified by a micro-optical element disposed on the micro-substrate surface, as taught by Bower (Figure 16B), in order to electrically connect micro-systems to their destination substrates after they have already been assembled (paragraphs 0010 and 0134).
Budd teaches wherein the micro-optical element (“lens”) is a passive optical component (paragraphs 0019-0020, where lenses are commonly known to be passive optical components).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the micro-optical component of Bower (Figure 17B) modified by wherein the micro-optical element is a passive optical component, as taught by Budd, in order to prevent the introduction of noise caused by electrical power.
Yamada teaches wherein the micro-substrate (102 “substrate section”, Figure 1B) and the micro-optical element (101 “lens sections”, Figure 1B) are unitary, monolithic, and comprise a common material (paragraph 0026 states “The lens sections 101 and the substrate section 102 are integrally made of an optically transparent resin material. As the resin material of the lens sections 101 and the substrate section 102, for example, a thermosetting epoxy resin, a thermosetting acryl resin, a photo-curable epoxy resin, a photo-curable acryl resin, or the like is used”, Figure 1B).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the micro-optical component of Bower (Figure 17B) modified by wherein the micro-substrate and the micro-optical element are unitary, monolithic, and comprise a common material, as taught by Yamada, in order to maintain close contact between the micro-substrate and the micro-optical element as well as retain the proper shapes of the micro-substrate and the micro-optical element as the resin hardens (paragraphs 0009-0013).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to utilize a micro-optical element and a micro-substrate surface such that the micro-optical element extends away from and beyond the micro-substrate surface in a direction orthogonal to the micro-substrate surface, since such a modification would involve only a mere change in size of a component. Scaling up or down of an element which merely requires a change in size is generally considered as being within the ordinary skill in the art. In re Rinehart, 189 USPQ 143 (CCAP 1976).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Bower (Figure 17B), Bower (Figure 16B), Budd, and Yamada discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and Bower (Figure 17B) further discloses the micro-substrate (1704 “substrate”) extends beyond the micro-optical element (1702 “micro-system”, Figure 17B).
However, Bower (Figure 17B) does not disclose wherein the micro-optical element is disposed on a surface of the micro-substrate and the micro-substrate is thinner than the micro-optical element and the micro-substrate extends beyond the micro-optical element in two dimensions parallel to the surface.
Budd teaches wherein the micro-optical element (“lens”) is disposed on a surface of the micro-substrate (claim 1 states “a lens integrated in a substrate”).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the micro-optical component of Bower (Figure 17B) modified by wherein the micro-optical element is disposed on a surface of the micro-substrate, as taught by Budd, in order to condense the system into a more compact design.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to utilize a micro-substrate and micro-optical element such that the micro-substrate is thinner than the micro-optical element and the micro-substrate extends beyond the micro-optical element in two dimensions parallel to the surface, since such a modification would involve only a mere change in size of a component. Scaling up or down of an element which merely requires a change in size is generally considered as being within the ordinary skill in the art. In re Rinehart, 189 USPQ 143 (CCAP 1976).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Bower (Figure 17B), Bower (Figure 16B), Budd, and Yamada discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and Bower (Figure 17B) further discloses wherein the micro-optical element (1702 “micro-system”) is a reflection element, a refraction element, a diffraction element, a frequency filter, a phase-change element, a polarization detector element, a polarization modifier element, a frequency converter, or any combination thereof (paragraph 0046 states "the plurality of micro-devices comprises at least one member selected from the group consisting of: a low-noise amplifier (e.g., InP), power amplifiers, analog-digital converters, transmit/receive switches, phase shifters, and frequency converters").
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Bower (Figure 17B), Bower (Figure 16B), Budd, and Yamada discloses all the limitations of claim 1, however Bower (Figure 17B) does not disclose a second micro-optical element formed in the micro-substrate that is operable to redirect, process, or modify light.
Yamada teaches a first micro-optical element (103a “lens surface”, Figure 1B) and a second micro-optical element (103b “lens surface”, Figure 1B) formed in the micro-substrate (102 “substrate section”, paragraph 0031 states “Each lens section 101 is configured so that predetermined lens surfaces 103a and 103b are formed on both sides thereof”, paragraph 0026 states “The lens sections 101 and the substrate section 102 are integrally made of an optically transparent resin material”, Figure 1B) that is operable to redirect, process, or modify light (paragraph 0031 states “Each lens section 101 is configured so that predetermined lens surfaces 103a and 103b are formed on both sides thereof”, where a well-known property of lenses is to redirect, process, or modify light).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the micro-optical component of Bower (Figure 17B) modified by a second micro-optical element formed in the micro-substrate that is operable to redirect, process, or modify light, as taught by Yamada, in order to cause symmetric shrinkage due to resin curing (paragraphs 0007, 0009-0012).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Bower (Figure 17B), Bower (Figure 16B), Budd, and Yamada discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and Bower (Figure 17B) further discloses wherein the micro-substrate (1704 “substrate”) is substantially transparent to light modified by the micro- optical element (1702 “micro-system”, paragraph 0135 states "a substrate 1704 (e.g., the backplane; e.g., glass, plastic, sapphire)").
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Bower (Figure 17B), Bower (Figure 16B), Budd, and Yamada discloses all the limitations of claim 1, however Bower (Figure 17B) does not disclose wherein (i) the micro-substrate has a micro-substrate area no greater than 100,000 μ2, (ii) the micro-substrate has a large aspect ratio (length to width), (iii) (a) the micro-substrate has a width of no greater than 50 μm and a length of no less than 100 μm, (b) the micro- substrate has a width of no greater than 100 μm and a length of no less than 500 μm, or (c) the micro-substrate has a width of no greater than 200 μm and a length of no less than 400 μm, or (d) any combination of (a), (b), and (c), or (iv) any combination of (i), (ii), and (iii).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to utilize a micro-substrate which has an area no greater than 100,000 μ2, has a large aspect ratio (length to width), has a width of no greater than 50 μm and a length of no less than 100 μm, has a width of no greater than 100 μm and a length of no less than 500 μm, or as a width of no greater than 200 μm and a length of no less than 400 μm since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Antonie 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977); In re Boesch 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 46, the combination of Bower (Figure 17B), Bower (Figure 16B), Budd, and Yamada discloses the micro-optical component of claim 1, however Bower (Figure 17B) does not disclose wherein the micro-optical component has a length and width each no greater than 250 μm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to utilize a micro-optical component such that the micro-optical component has a length and width each no greater than 250 μm, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Antonie 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977); In re Boesch 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 51, the combination of Bower (Figure 17B), Bower (Figure 16B), Budd, and Yamada discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and Bower (Figure 17B) further discloses at least a portion of a component tether (1708a, 1708b “interconnection lines”) physically attached to the micro-substrate (1704 “substrate”) or physically attached to the micro-optical element (1702 “micro-system”, Figure 17B) extending away from the micro-substrate (1704 “substrate”) or micro-optical element (1702 “micro-system”, Figure 17B shows that 1708a and 1708b “interconnection lines” extend away from 1702 “micro-system”).
Regarding claim 54, the combination of Bower (Figure 17B), Bower (Figure 16B), Budd, and Yamada discloses all the limitations of claim 1, however Bower (Figure 17B) does not disclose wherein the micro-optical element is a first micro-optical element and the micro-substrate surface is a first micro-substrate surface and the micro-optical component further comprises a second micro-optical element disposed on a second micro-substrate surface of the micro-substrate opposite the first micro- substrate surface, wherein the second micro-substrate and the second micro-optical element are unitary, monolithic, and comprise a common material, and wherein the second micro-optical element extends away from and beyond the micro- substrate surface in a direction orthogonal to the micro-substrate surface.
Yamada teaches wherein the micro-optical element (101 “lens section”, Figure 1B) is a first micro-optical element (103a “lens surface”, paragraph 0031 states “Each lens section 101 is configured so that predetermined lens surfaces 103a and 103b are formed on both sides thereof, and in the example shown in the drawing, all the surfaces are formed as convex spherical surfaces”, Figure 1B) and the micro-optical component (100 “wafer level lens array”, Figure 1B) further comprises a second micro-optical element (103b “lens surface”, Figure 1B) disposed on the micro-substrate (102 “substrate section”, Figure 1B) opposite the first micro- substrate surface (103a “lens surface”, Figure 1B shows that 103b “lens surface” is disposed opposite 103a “lens surface”), wherein the micro-substrate (102 “substrate section”) and the second micro-optical element (103b “lens surface”) are unitary, monolithic, and comprise a common material (paragraph 0026 states “The lens sections 101 and the substrate section 102 are integrally made of an optically transparent resin material”, paragraph 0031 states “Each lens section 101 is configured so that predetermined lens surfaces 103a and 103b are formed on both sides thereof”), and wherein the second micro-optical element (103b “lens surface”) extends away from and beyond the micro-substrate surface (102 “substrate section”) in a direction orthogonal to the micro-substrate surface (102 “substrate section”, Figure 1B shows that 103b “lens surface” extends away from and beyond 102 “substrate section”).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the micro-optical component of Bower (Figure 17B) modified by wherein the micro-optical element is a first micro-optical element and the micro-substrate surface is a first micro-substrate surface and the micro-optical component further comprises a second micro-optical element disposed on a second micro-substrate surface of the micro-substrate opposite the first micro- substrate surface, wherein the second micro-substrate and the second micro-optical element are unitary, monolithic, and comprise a common material, and wherein the second micro-optical element extends away from and beyond the micro- substrate surface in a direction orthogonal to the micro-substrate surface, as taught by Yamada, in order to cause symmetric shrinkage due to resin curing (paragraphs 0007, 0009-0012).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to utilize a micro-substrate surface such that the micro-substrate surface is a first micro-substrate surface and a second micro-substrate surface of the micro-substrate, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. In re Dulberg 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bower (US 20160093600 A1)(Figure 17B), in view of Budd (US 20200049906 A1), in view of Yamada (US 20100289161 A1), and further in view of Bower (US 20160093600 A1)(Figure 14).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Bower (Figure 17B), Bower (Figure 16B), Budd, and Yamada discloses all the limitations of claim 51, however Bower (Figure 17B) does not disclose wherein the component tether is a broken or separated component tether.
Bower (Figure 14) teaches wherein the component tether is a broken or separated component tether (paragraph 0132 states “FIG. 14 is a plan view illustration of an example micro-system that has been etched underneath the micro-system and remains attached to an anchor by a breakable tether. The breakable tether is designed to break when the micro-system is picked up by a transfer device”).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the optical system of Bower (Figure 17B) modified by the component tether being a broken or separated component tether, as taught by Bower (Figure 14), in order to allow the tether to break when the micro-system is picked up by a transfer device (paragraph 0132).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bower (US 20160093600 A1)(Figure 17B), in view of Budd (US 20200049906 A1), in view of Yamada (US 20100289161 A1), and further in view of Ogden (US 10317624 B1).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Bower (Figure 17B), Bower (Figure 16B), Budd, and Yamada discloses all the limitations of claim 1, however Bower (Figure 17B) does not disclose wherein the micro-optical element is disposed on a surface of the micro-substrate and the micro-substrate extends beyond the micro-optical element in only one dimension parallel to the surface.
Budd teaches wherein the micro-optical element (“lens”) is disposed on a surface of the micro-substrate (claim 1 states “a lens integrated in a substrate”).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the micro-optical component of Bower (Figure 17B) modified by wherein the micro-optical element is disposed on a surface of the micro-substrate, as taught by Budd, in order to condense the system into a more compact design.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to utilize a micro-optical element and a micro-substrate such that the micro-optical element is disposed on a surface of the micro-substrate and the micro-substrate extends beyond the micro-optical element in only one dimension parallel to the surface, since such a modification would involve only a mere change in size of a component. Scaling up or down of an element which merely requires a change in size is generally considered as being within the ordinary skill in the art. In re Rinehart, 189 USPQ 143 (CCAP 1976).
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bower (US 20160093600 A1)(Figure 17B), in view of Budd (US 20200049906 A1), in view of Yamada (US 20100289161 A1), and further in view of Gronenborn (US 20220107077 A1).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Bower (Figure 17B), Bower (Figure 16B), Budd, and Yamada discloses all the limitations of claim 1, however Bower (Figure 17B) does not disclose a light-generating element disposed on the micro-substrate on a side of the micro-substrate opposite the micro-optical element.
Gronenborn teaches a light-generating element (“VCSEL”, paragraph 0002 states “a light source comprising a Vertical Cavity Surface Emitting Laser (VCSEL)”; this element is interpreted under 112(f) as a laser or light-emitting diode as described in summary paragraph 5 of the specification) or a light-responsive element (this element is interpreted under 112(f) as a photodiode or a phototransistor as described in summary paragraph 5 of the specification) located on the opposite side of the micro-substrate (“semiconductor substrate”) as the micro-substrate (“semiconductor substrate”) opposite the micro-optical element (“diffusor lens”, claim 11 states “the VCSEL is a bottom emitter which is arranged to emit the laser light through the semiconductor substrate, wherein the diffusor lens is arranged on a surface of the semiconductor substrate or integrated into the semiconductor substrate which is arranged opposite with respect to the VCSEL”).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the micro-optical component of Bower (Figure 17B) modified by a light-generating element or a light-responsive element disposed on the micro-substrate on a side of the micro-substrate opposite the micro-optical element, as taught by Gronenborn, in order to cause light to pass through the substrate before interacting with the micro-element (paragraph 0056).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Bower (Figure 17B), Bower (Figure 16B), Budd, Yamada, and Gronenborn discloses all the limitations of claim 8, however Bower (Figure 17B) does not disclose wherein the light-generating element is a laser or light-emitting diode and the light- responsive element is a photodiode.
Gronenborn teaches wherein the light-generating element (“VCSEL”) is a laser (paragraph 0002 states “a light source comprising a Vertical Cavity Surface Emitting Laser (VCSEL)”) or light-emitting diode and the light- responsive element is a photodiode.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the micro-optical component of Bower (Figure 17B) modified by the light-generating element being a laser, as taught by Gronenborn, in order to produce focused and coherent light.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bower (US 20160093600 A1)(Figure 17B), in view of Budd (US 20200049906 A1), in view of Yamada (US 20100289161 A1), and further in view of Shih (US 20130235184 A1).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Bower (Figure 17B), Bower (Figure 16B), Budd, and Yamada discloses all the limitations of claim 1, however Bower (Figure 17B) does not disclose wherein the micro-substrate comprises a micro-alignment mark disposed in the micro- substrate area exclusive of a micro-optical element area in contact with the micro-substrate.
Budd teaches a micro-optical element (“lens”) area in contact with the micro-substrate (claim 1 states “a lens integrated in a substrate”).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the micro-optical component of Bower (Figure 17B) modified by a micro-optical element area in contact with the micro-substrate, as taught by Budd, in order to condense the system into a more compact design.
Shih teaches wherein the micro-substrate comprises a micro-alignment mark (132 “second align mark”) disposed in the micro-substrate (131 “thin film transistor substrate”) area exclusive of a micro-optical element area (130 “lower polarizing sheet”, Figure 2a).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the micro-optical component of Bower (Figure 17B) modified by a micro-alignment mark disposed in a micro-substrate area, as taught by Shih, in order to increase the precision of the alignment (paragraph 0010).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bower (US 20160093600 A1)(Figure 17B), in view of Budd (US 20200049906 A1), in view of Yamada (US 20100289161 A1), and further in view of Fujisawa (US 20100068653 A1).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Bower (Figure 17B), Bower (Figure 16B), Budd, and Yamada discloses all the limitations of claim 1, however Bower (Figure 17B) does not disclose wherein the micro-substrate is substantially opaque to, reflects, filters, or absorbs light modified by the micro-optical element.
Fujisawa teaches wherein the micro-substrate (1 “substrate”) is substantially opaque to, reflects, filters, or absorbs light (paragraph 0020 states “a substrate 1 made of a material that absorbs irradiation light”) modified by the micro-optical element (Figure 2B shows that light “L” passes through the layers disposed on the substrate “1” before interacting with the substrate “1”).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the micro-optical component of Bower (Figure 17B) modified by the micro-substrate being substantially opaque to, reflects, filters, or absorbs light modified by the micro-optical element, as taught by Fujisawa, in order to prevent reflection of light from the substrate back into the system (paragraph 0027).
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bower (US 20160093600 A1)(Figure 17B), in view of Budd (US 20200049906 A1), in view of Yamada (US 20100289161 A1), and further in view of Becker (US 20190204506 A1).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Bower (Figure 17B), Bower (Figure 16B), Budd, and Yamada discloses all the limitations of claim 1, however Bower (Figure 17B) does not disclose a protective layer or protective layers.
Becker teaches a protective layer or protective layers (“protection layer”, paragraphs 0010, 0011).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the micro-optical component of Bower (Figure 17B) modified by a protective layer, as taught by Becker, in order to only allow light of a certain wavelength to pass though (paragraphs 0010, 0011).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Bower (Figure 17B), Bower (16B), Budd, Yamada, and Becker disclose all the limitations of claim 16, however Bower (Figure 17B) does not disclose wherein the protective layer or protective layers are constructed to desirably interact with light.
Becker teaches wherein the protective layer or protective layers (“protection layer”) are constructed to desirably interact with light (paragraphs 0010, 0011).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the micro-optical component of Bower (Figure 17B) modified by the protective layer or protective layers being constructed to desirably interact with light, as taught by Becker, in order to only allow light of a certain wavelength to pass though (paragraphs 0010, 0011).
Claims 18 and 52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bower (US 20160093600 A1)(Figure 17B), in view of Budd (US 20200049906 A1), in view of Yamada (US 20100289161 A1), and further in view of Bower2 (US 20190051552 A1).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Bower (Figure 17B), Bower (Figure 16B), Budd, and Yamada disclose all the limitations of claim 51, however Bower (Figure 17B) does not disclose a protective layer or protective layers and wherein the component tether comprises a portion of the protective layer.
Bower2 teaches a protective layer or protective layers (paragraph 0055 states “a tether device portion 32 of a tether structure 30 can be an encapsulating or protective layer”) and wherein the component tether (32 “tether device portion”) comprises a portion of the protective layer (paragraph 0055).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the micro-optical component of Bower (Figure 17B) modified by a protective layer or protective layers and wherein the component tether comprises a portion of the protective layer, as taught by Bower2, in order to provide additional protection to the micro-optical component.
Regarding claim 52, the combination of Bower (Figure 17B), Bower (Figure 16B), Budd, and Yamada discloses all the limitations of claim 51, however Bower (Figure 17B) does not disclose wherein the at least a portion of a component tether is fractured, broken, or separated.
Bower (Figure 14) teaches wherein the at least a portion of a component tether is fractured, broken, or separated (paragraph 0132 states “FIG. 14 is a plan view illustration of an example micro-system that has been etched underneath the micro-system and remains attached to an anchor by a breakable tether. The breakable tether is designed to break when the micro-system is picked up by a transfer device”).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the micro-optical component of Bower (Figure 17B) modified by wherein the at least a portion of a component tether is fractured, broken, or separated, as taught by Bower (Figure 14), in order to allow the tether to break when the micro-system is picked up by a transfer device (paragraph 0132).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bower (US 20160093600 A1)(Figure 17B), in view of Budd (US 20200049906 A1), in view of Yamada (US 20100289161 A1), and further in view of Marcoccia (US 20210407959 A1).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Bower (Figure 17B), Bower (Figure 16B), Budd, and Yamada discloses all the limitations of claim 51, however Bower (Figure 17B) does not disclose wherein the component tether is a hybrid organic-inorganic tether.
Marcoccia teaches wherein the component tether is a hybrid organic-inorganic tether (paragraph 0048 states “wherein the tether material comprises at least one of a silicon nitride, a silicon oxide, or photoresist” where it is well known in the art that silicon nitride and silicon oxide are inorganic materials and photoresists are most commonly organic materials).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the micro-optical component of Bower (Figure 17B) modified by the component tether being a hybrid organic-inorganic tether, as taught by Marcoccia, in order to allow the tethers to be strong enough to anchor components, yet weak enough to break under minimal force during micro-transfer printing (paragraph 0020).
Claims 20 and 55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bower (US 20160093600 A1)(Figure 17B), in view of Budd (US 20200049906 A1), in view of Yamada (US 20100289161 A1), and further in view of Trinidade (US 20200286747 A1).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Bower (Figure 17B), Bower (Figure 16B), Budd, and Yamada discloses all the limitations of claim 1, however Bower (Figure 17B) does not disclose a system substrate; and a micro-optical component according to claim 1 disposed on the system substrate, wherein the micro-optical component is non-native to the system substrate.
Trinidade teaches a system substrate (50 “destination substrate”); and a micro-optical component (“20 “component”) according to claim 1 disposed on the system substrate (Figure 7), wherein the micro-optical component (20 “component”) is non-native to the system substrate (50 “destination substrate”, paragraph 0050 states “retrieve and transfer arrays of components 20 from their native wafer substrate 10 onto non-native destination substrates 50”).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the micro-optical component of Bower (Figure 17B) modified by the micro-optical component according to claim 1 disposed on the system substrate, wherein the micro-optical component is non-native to the system substrate, as taught by Trinidade, in order to transfer the micro-optical component to a substrate of a different material (paragraph 0029).
Regarding claim 55, the combination of Bower (Figure 17B), Bower (Figure 16B), Budd, Yamada, and Trinidade discloses all the limitations of claim 20, however Bower (Figure 17B) does not disclose wherein the system substrate has a cavity and the micro-optical component is disposed at least partially in the cavity, the micro-optical element is disposed at least partially in the cavity, the micro-optical element is disposed entirely in the cavity, the micro-optical element is disposed above the cavity, the system substrate comprises a wave guide, or any combination of these.
Trinidade teaches the micro-optical element (28 “passive element”, paragraphs 0038, 0040) is disposed above the cavity (14 “recessed portion”, paragraph 0032, Figure 1 shows that 28 “passive element” is disposed above 14 “recessed portion”).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the micro-optical component of Bower (Figure 17B) modified by the micro-optical element is disposed above the cavity, as taught by Trinidade, in order to allow etchants and adhesives to access the bottom side of the component and therefore access the bottom side of the passive element (paragraphs 0032-0033).
Claim 47 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bower (US 20160093600 A1)(Figure 17B), in view of Craton (WO 2011133518 A1)(see attached copy).
Regarding claim 47, Bower (Figure 17B) discloses a micro-optical component, in at least Figure 17B, comprising:
a micro-substrate (1704 “substrate”, Figure 17B);
a micro-optical element (1702 “micro-system”) disposed on the micro-substrate (1704 “substrate”, Figure 17B); and
at least a portion of a component tether (1708a, 1708b “interconnection lines”) physically attached to the micro-substrate (1704 “substrate”) or physically attached to the micro-optical element (1702 “micro-system”, Figure 17B) and extending away from and beyond the micro-substrate (1704 “substrate”) or micro-optical element (1702 “micro-system”, Figure 17B shows that 1708a, 1708b “interconnection lines” extend away from and beyond 1702 “micro-system”),
wherein the micro-optical component has a thickness no greater than 250 μm (paragraph 0099 states "The thickness of micro-devices is typically smaller than either the width or length of the device, for example less than 20 microns, less than 10 microns, or less than 5 microns" and paragraph 0038 states “the destination substrate has a thickness from 5 to 10 microns”).
However, Bower (Figure 17B) does not disclose wherein the at least a portion of a component tether is a cured polymer.
Craton teaches wherein the at least a portion of a component tether is a cured polymer (paragraph 0093 states “All samples were cured with only UVA (Step 3); thus, the reactive polymer tethers of the modified nanoparticles remained uncrosslinked with the adhesive matrix. Some samples were also subsequently cured with UVC (Step 4), crosslinking the reactive polymer tethers of the modified nanoparticles with the adhesive matrix”).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the micro-optical component of Bower (Figure 17B) modified by wherein the at least a portion of a component tether is a cured polymer, as taught by Craton, in order to crosslink the tethers to an adhesive (paragraph 0093).
Claim 48 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bower (US 20160093600 A1)(Figure 17B), in view of Craton (WO 2011133518 A1)(see attached copy), and further in view of Bower (US 20160093600 A1)(Figure 14).
Regarding claim 48, the combination of Bower (Figure 17B) and Craton disclose all the limitations of claim 47, however Bower (Figure 17B) does not disclose wherein the component tether is fractured or separated.
Bower (Figure 14) teaches wherein the component tether is fractured or separated (paragraph 0132 states “FIG. 14 is a plan view illustration of an example micro-system that has been etched underneath the micro-system and remains attached to an anchor by a breakable tether. The breakable tether is designed to break when the micro-system is picked up by a transfer device”).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the optical system of Bower (Figure 17B) modified by wherein the component tether is fractured or separated, as taught by Bower (Figure 14), in order to allow the tether to break when the micro-system is picked up by a transfer device (paragraph 0132).
Claim 53 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bower (US 20160093600 A1)(Figure 17B), in view of Budd (US 20200049906 A1), in view of Yamada (US 20100289161 A1), and further in view of Craton (WO 2011133518 A1)(see attached copy).
Regarding claim 53, the combination of Bower (Figure 17B), Bower (Figure 16B), Budd, and Yamada discloses all the limitations of claim 1, however Bower (Figure 17B) does not disclose wherein the common material is a cured polymer.
Craton teaches wherein the common material is a cured polymer (paragraph 0093 states “All samples were cured with only UVA (Step 3); thus, the reactive polymer tethers of the modified nanoparticles remained uncrosslinked with the adhesive matrix. Some samples were also subsequently cured with UVC (Step 4), crosslinking the reactive polymer tethers of the modified nanoparticles with the adhesive matrix”).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the micro-optical component of Bower (Figure 17B) modified by wherein the common material is a cured polymer, as taught by Craton, in order to crosslink the tethers to an adhesive (paragraph 0093).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALAINA M SWANSON whose telephone number is (703)756-5809. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 7:30am-4:00pm.
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, Pinping Sun can be reached at 571-270-1284. 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.
/ALAINA MARIE SWANSON/Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/WILLIAM R ALEXANDER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872